Parents, students press St. Helens School District over alleged abuse and mandatory-reporting language

Community members and students used the meeting's public-comment period to press the St. Helens School District board on draft policy language about suspected sexual misconduct and mandatory reporting, saying the proposed text could protect employees at the expense of student safety.

At the Jan. 29 meeting, community members — including students and parents — described personal experiences and urged the board to require direct reporting to authorities. Abigail Wilson, a community member who addressed the board during the public-comment portion, said the draft policy's language "stating that '...conduct does not include touching or other physical contact that is necessitated by the nature of the school employees' job duties...and for which there is no [sexual] intent,' leaves room for much personal interpretation." She said that wording "absolves responsibility from the teachers and administrators responsible for the safety and protection of St. Helens High School students."

Why it matters: The district presented the revised policies (GBNAA/JHF and related drafts) as a first reading; no board action was required or taken on policy language at this meeting. Several speakers urged changes before the revisions return for later readings, saying clarity is essential because, they argued, vague language can frustrate mandatory-reporting obligations and leave victims unprotected.

Students and parents described failures in the district's responses to past allegations. Maddie Filardo, a junior at St. Helens High School, said she had been victimized while a freshman and argued the draft policy omits sufficient protections for student-to-student incidents. Filardo criticized specific draft language that she said allows staff conduct "necessitated by the nature of [their] job duties" to fall outside the definition of reportable misconduct.

Parent Sarah Young, addressing board members as a resident, described personal history and urged the district to adopt policy language that does not "protect the people in charge and not the students." She also told the board she believes the district set aside $98,000 for legal fees this year and said that amount "is not going to cover it," arguing that litigation costs are a consequence of perceived inaction. Another commenter said the district faces ongoing litigation; speakers attributed some of the district's financial and reputational costs to how past allegations were handled.

Board and staff response: Acting Superintendent Dr. Webb (identified in the meeting as "Dr. Webb") told the board the policy drafts were prepared following recommendations from the Oregon School Boards Association and that House Bill 4160 (enacted in 2024) required some changes, specifically altering a statutory definition used in the policies. Board members and staff said the draft is at first reading only, and that the board will take further public comment and legal review before adopting final language.

Several parents and speakers asked the board to require that employees report suspected abuse directly to DHS (Oregon Department of Human Services) or law enforcement rather than only reporting up the chain of command to a designated administrator. Ashley Christner and Sarah Davis, both speaking during the visitors portion, urged the board to ensure district policy aligns with Oregon mandatory-reporting statutes (ORS 419B.005 was referenced during public comments) and the state's mandatory-reporting training guidance that says "you are the responsible reporter" and "you cannot ask someone else to make this report for you," as Davis put it.

Public pressure and calls for accountability: Multiple speakers called for more transparency and some urged board resignations. One commenter said the community had "no faith in this board to keep our kids safe" and called for immediate resignations; another said parents could pursue recalls. Those statements were presented as the speakers' opinions and were not board actions.

Next steps: The district presented the policy revisions as a first reading. Board members invited written suggestions and public testimony ahead of a second reading; legal counsel from OSBA will be involved in drafting final language. Several speakers provided written notes and asked the board to consider them as the draft proceeds through the remaining readings.

Ending note: Board members stated the policy process includes multiple readings and opportunities for community input; they encouraged commenters to submit precise suggested language to assist legal review and to help the board produce a final draft that aligns with state law and community expectations.