Governing board discusses wide-ranging changes in Trust Policy Chapter 4; asks staff for edits and legal review

The Liberty Elementary District governing board used a large portion of its May 19 meeting to review and query proposed edits to Trust Policy Chapter 4 (personnel and staff-related policies). No final vote on Chapter 4 occurred; staff were instructed to pursue clarifications, legal review and follow-up edits.

Assistant Superintendent Dr. Stephanie Mahorn and staff member Simi Castellanos presented the draft chapter and summarized edits made after earlier comments. Board members and staff engaged in detailed discussion across multiple topics, frequently asking staff or legal counsel for statutory clarifications and operational implications. Key points discussed included:

- Administrator nonrenewal and deadlines: Board members asked whether administrators have the same April 15 nonrenewal notification deadline as certificated teachers. Staff confirmed April 15 applies to administrators and noted administrators typically serve one-year contracts; the board discussed whether to draft a specific nonrenewal policy for administrators but heard counsel and staff caution that creating a new policy would require legal drafting and could be complex.

- Reference-check requirements for hires: The board debated minimum numbers and types of references. Presenters noted existing practice aims for three professional references plus HR-to-HR verification from prior employers; several board members proposed minimums (for example, at least one verified employer reference) to “future-proof” the district. Staff agreed to tighten wording to require HR contact previous employers listed on the applicant’s resume and to attempt multiple professional references, while considering a minimum threshold (discussion centered on a minimum of one verified reference with an effort to obtain up to three).

- Evaluations and instruments: The board discussed whether to include the evaluation instrument text within policy or direct policy to "use the current instrument" so updates to the instrument would not require repeated policy adoption. Staff recommended using language that adopts the current instrument and allows the district to update it as revised, with the board retaining the ability to review the instrument when significant changes occur.

- Academic integrity and AI: Board members debated language about “writing assistance” and AI tools. One member objected to language that allows “sentence structure” help, calling it a slippery slope; other members noted the need to preserve accommodations (for example, assistive technology) and suggested adding a sentence that AI “shall not be used as the primary method” for student work. Staff noted the policy currently frames AI as a teacher-discretion tool and that some state-provided accommodations rely on such tools.

- Election-related statements: Staff clarified a legal difference discussed in the meeting: for bond elections the statute requires a factual “purpose statement” (informational) rather than a board-issued pro statement; for budget overrides the statute specifically contemplates a board-prepared “pro statement.” Board members requested clearer policy language to reflect that the governing board may not submit a pro statement for a bond and that individuals may submit pro statements independently.

- Reduction-in-force (RIF) and nonrenewal language: The board considered whether RIF should be described as a form of nonrenewal. Some members favored keeping language that allows nonrenewal as an administrative tool for timeline and public-relations reasons; others expressed concern that equating a RIF with nonrenewal could disadvantage employees seeking other work. Staff explained the practical effects and noted HR typically attempts to assist affected employees with rehire prospects.

- Gifts and conflict-of-interest limits: Board members debated including a monetary cap on gifts from students or parents to staff. Several participants referenced guidance from the Arizona General Accounting Office and other state resources mentioning a $25 threshold; others worried about implementation and equity. Staff was asked to research state guidance and return with a recommended dollar limit or alternative language emphasizing parental consent and conflict-of-interest rules.

- Mandatory reporter training: The board confirmed that governing board members are mandatory reporters under state law and discussed the need to ensure board members receive training and orientation on mandatory reporting.

- Whistleblower and grievance procedures: Members discussed grievance scope (individual vs. group grievances) and whether the board should be notified when complaints reach the superintendent level. Legal counsel and staff noted statutory hearing procedures and open-meeting constraints; staff recommended routing complaints against the superintendent to legal counsel and following statutory hearing options, and the board asked staff to add language on notice procedures consistent with open-meeting law and privacy rules.

Staff told the board they will forward Chapter 5 for legal review soon and will return revised Chapter 4 language after additional edits and counsel review. The board did not vote to adopt Chapter 4 at the meeting; staff will incorporate the directions above and present a revised draft for future consideration.