Caledonia speakers urge board to avoid new mask policy, question hiring of constitutional law firm and call for trustee background checks

Caledonia Community Schools Board of Education meeting — Public comment: Multiple residents urged the board not to adopt a district-wide mask policy that would override health department guidance, questioned plans to hire an additional constitutional law firm, and asked the board to require background checks for trustees.

Speakers including James Ernest, a resident who posted a public letter, said the board should not adopt a policy “that you are not legally empowered to make” and questioned whether a draft policy “was drafted with the help of Coleman Legal of Lansing or with Coleman’s help.” Ernest added that hiring legal counsel tied to a drafted policy would create the appearance of a conflict: “The appearance created by this post is that you are being urged to pass a Coleman‑drafted policy that would expose this district to legal liability, while at the same time, you are being urged to put Coleman legal on retainer.”

Resident David Deagle told the board that mask requirements during 2020 helped avoid overwhelming local health care: “They were meant to slow the progression of the virus so that we don't overwhelm the local healthcare environment.” Deagle also urged the board not to add a new law firm amid uncertain state and federal funding, saying “it would be simply fiscally irresponsible for Caledonia schools to take on an additional law firm at this time.”

Former board member Jason Sadu said legal guidance taken in a prior mask discussion supported following health department mandates and warned of insurance and liability risks if the district chose to defy public‑health orders. Sadu noted existing district policy 84‑50, which “clearly states, the board shall follow all state statutes and health department regulations which pertain to immunization and other means for controlling the spread of casual contact communicable diseases.”

Several speakers—including parents and community members who identified themselves as volunteers, retired teachers, and business owners—urged the board to prioritize classroom needs over legal battles. One commenter summarized the concern as: “If there's extra money to spend, why isn't it going towards teacher support, academic programs, or classroom resources?”

Other public comments urged the board to require background checks for trustees. A speaker who identified herself as having worked in education said she had “never come across” a district that did not require background checks for board members and called a background‑check policy “a simple common sense step forward.” Another former trustee said requiring trustee background checks would align board accountability with standards already applied to teachers, staff and volunteers.

Why it matters: Commenters linked the mask policy and additional legal counsel to fiscal and liability concerns and to the board’s priorities for student services and special education. Several speakers urged the board to focus on the upcoming millage vote, teacher recruitment and budget shortfalls rather than reopening earlier pandemic debates.

Board action/status: These matters were raised during public comment and discussed previously in a Committee of the Whole meeting; no formal policy change or vote on a new mask policy or an additional law firm occurred during this meeting. Board members acknowledged the comments and indicated policy and legal review would follow the district’s normal process.

What comes next: Board members said the security/background‑check proposal and policy language will be circulated and likely appear for formal review at a future meeting for first reading and legal review.