Liberty Elementary board adopts trust policy chapters 1 and 2, continues debate on chapter 3

President Michael Todd called the Liberty Elementary School District governing board to order at 5:30 p.m. Wednesday and the board approved the meeting agenda before taking up three trust policy chapters under review.

The board voted unanimously, 4-0, to adopt Trust Policy Chapter 1 as a third read and to adopt Chapter 2 as a third read; both were recorded as effective on July 1, 2025. Board members present — Board member Zimmerman, Vice President Kenyon, Board member Schenzioni and President Michael Todd — each voted “aye.” Board member Schmidt was absent and noted as such in the record.

The meeting’s central work was a detailed second‑read discussion of Trust Policy Chapter 3. Staff member Miss Castellanos opened the item, saying, "we are here to discuss any review or any edits that were made to chapter 1" (comments during the meeting identifying the chapters and proposed edits). Legal counsel Mr. Dangerfield repeatedly referenced attorney general guidance and state statute while answering board questions: "the language that's in here is actually from the statute and the attorney general's guidelines." The board did not adopt Chapter 3 at this meeting and directed staff to return with revisions and legal clarifications.

Why it matters: the trust policies set districtwide procedures on visitor and volunteer access, facility use, campaign activity on district property, records requests, student technology access and acceptable use. Board members pressed staff and legal counsel for clearer, enforceable language on several items that could affect daily operations and election‑period practices at district sites.

Key outcomes and discussion points

- Votes: The board approved the meeting agenda (motion carried) and then approved Trust Policy Chapter 1 (third read) and Trust Policy Chapter 2 (third read), both to be effective 07/01/2025. Tally for each adoption: Zimmerman — Aye; Kenyon — Aye; Schenzioni — Aye; Todd — Aye; Schmidt — Absent. Both chapter adoptions were recorded as 4 yes, 0 no.

- Chapter 3 (second read): The board engaged in an extended review but did not vote to adopt. Members raised multiple substantive issues that staff agreed to research and return with revised language and supporting legal citations.

Substantive points raised during Chapter 3 discussion

- Clearance‑card waivers: Board member Zimmerman asked that if the superintendent (or designee) waives a contractor’s clearance card the building principal be notified so principals are aware of who will be on campus. Staff said they would add notification language to the procedures.

- Facility use and keys: Zimmerman and other members expressed concern about whether non‑employees or renters receive keys and how campuses ensure safety and asset protection. Staff replied that details about who opens/closes and key access appear on facility use paperwork at the school site but agreed to add clearer policy language or cross‑referenced procedure language into the trust policy so district practice is consistent.

- Political signs, petition circulation and polling places: Members questioned the policy language restricting political signs and activities at school polling places. Dangerfield and staff cited attorney general guidelines interpreting ARS 15‑511 (cited in the meeting) and the AG's 2004 opinion; they advised the board the guideline language is what the trust used. Mr. Dangerfield said the AG guidance supports limiting political activity on school property even where the 75‑foot buffer rule otherwise applies at polling places. The board asked staff to provide the cited AG guidance and to consult with legal counsel (Miss Siegel was referenced as an expert involved in drafting the AG guidance) before finalizing Chapter 3 language.

- Volunteers and visitors: Board members asked for a clear distinction between visitors and volunteers. Staff said a volunteer procedure exists (paperwork filed at the district office) and that a volunteer policy could be located or added if the board wants a policy rather than only a procedure.

- Public records and FOIA timing: Board members requested more precision about what constitutes a "reasonable" response time for public records requests. Legal counsel said the courts determine "reasonable" based on facts, but suggested a general 30‑day guideline can be used while noting exceptions when review or redaction is required.

- Personal devices and public records: The board discussed how personal device records (texts, messages) could be subject to record requests in litigation and whether procedures are in place for preservation and review. Legal counsel recounted prior cases where phone companies provided records in court‑ordered situations and indicated that clear procedure and legal review will be necessary.

- Technology access and discipline: Members debated a policy line that says users "may be denied access to district technology" for misuse. Zimmerman worried about removing a student's access to essential instructional tools; legal counsel and staff described alternatives: supervised on‑site access or paper copies so students retain access to curriculum while disciplinary processes proceed.

- Wireless devices/cellphones: Board members debated restricting student use of cellphones to emergency situations and directing parent‑to‑student communications through the front office. Several members argued a stricter rule reduces classroom disruptions; others cautioned to check recent state law (House Bill 2484 was referenced) and to ensure the policy does not unduly restrict necessary communication or medical devices.

- Artificial intelligence (AI) tools: The draft permits teacher‑authorized AI uses for limited tasks (for example, grammar/spelling assistance). Zimmerman expressed concern that AI suggestions for sentence structure could enable plagiarism and weaken writing instruction; other board members noted AI tutoring programs used by the state and said teacher discretion and grade‑level limits might be an appropriate middle ground. Staff noted the trust policy will be updated annually, offering opportunities to revisit AI language.

- Data protection and technology rules: Board members asked where the district's responsibilities for data protection and prohibited software (VPNs/proxy tools) now live after trust revisions; staff said they will research where the deleted language moved in the trust manual and restore critical protections in the district policy where appropriate.

Next steps and directions

- Staff agreed to return with revised Chapter 3 language, including: added principal notification when clearance waivers are granted; clearer facility‑use/key language or a cross‑referenced facility use procedures handbook; the attorney general guidance and statutory citations used to shape political‑activity and petition language; suggested wording on FOIA response timing and procedures for records on personal devices; and a proposal on how to implement technology‑access discipline without denying essential curriculum access.

- Board scheduling: Staff confirmed upcoming meetings and work study sessions in May and June to continue policy review; the board reserved several weekend and weekday dates to complete the remaining chapters and consider legal input.

Quotes

"We are here to discuss any review or any edits that were made to chapter 1," staff member Miss Castellanos told the board when opening the policy review.

"The language that's in here is actually from the statute and the attorney general's guidelines," legal counsel Mr. Dangerfield said when answering questions about political‑sign and polling‑place limits.

"I just am concerned about the key part. Are we giving keys to people who rent our facilities, and how do we..." Board member Zimmerman said, asking for clearer policy language on key distribution and campus safety.

Ending

The board adopted Trust Policy chapters 1 and 2 to take effect July 1, 2025, and continued its deliberations on Chapter 3 with instructions for staff to return with tightened language and legal citations. No final action was taken on Chapter 3 at the May 7 special meeting; the board scheduled follow‑up reviews and legal consultation before a possible third read and adoption.