Board discusses AI misuse, dress code and off‑duty law‑enforcement visitor language during policy first reads

At its July 23, 2025 meeting the Emporia Board of Education held first readings and extended discussion on student-handbook additions related to artificial intelligence, dress code alignment and a proposed board-policy insertion addressing off‑duty law‑enforcement officers entering district buildings.

Human resources staff said the student handbook adds a prohibition for misuse of AI tools and replicates the board’s AI policy language in the handbook to avoid ambiguity. Dr. Erica Mickelson told the board the AI language was placed directly into the handbook so “there's no question about what the board policy is and what it states.” The handbook first read also contains dress-code edits that will be discussed further when the board considers related policy language on hairstyles.

Board members focused significant discussion on a policy recommendation from the Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB) that attempts to align district visitor rules with a state law change. During the discussion a board member cited House Bill 2052 and Kansas statute 75‑7c22 (as written in the draft policy) and expressed concern that the statutory language, if adopted verbatim, could limit the district’s ability to require visitors to sign in or to request identification from off‑duty officers entering district buildings.

One board member summarized the apparent statutory cross‑references and described subsection (b) and subsection (b)(2) as creating ambiguity: while subsection (b) allows an off‑duty officer to enter with agency identification and to present that identification “when requested by another law enforcement officer or by a person of authority for the building,” subsection (b)(2) states a person of authority shall not require, request or record personal information of an off‑duty officer. That board member said the text, as drafted, “kind of neuters and renders meaningless” the identification clause and described it as “poorly written law.”

Other trustees raised security and verification concerns: if an individual claims to be off‑duty law enforcement but is not required to identify themself or to permit the district to record identifying information, the board member said, it could create a safety risk. Board members agreed to seek guidance from the district attorney; the draft policy was already submitted to the district’s attorney who was reported to have the policy “in queue to review.” One board member specifically urged follow‑up with legal counsel before final adoption.

No final board vote was taken on the hairstyle-related policy or the off‑duty officer language; the student handbook changes were held as a first read because they depend on a related hairstyle policy change. Board members said they will return the items for additional discussion after attorney review.