Board delays decision on who interprets 'assault' in staff-student incidents after union grievance

The Saline Area Schools Board of Education discussed a grievance and a proposed designation on Feb. 25 that would make the superintendent the board’s representative for interpreting the definition of "physical assault" in incidents involving students and staff. After extended discussion about the meaning of "intentional" in the legal definition and the role of IEP and disciplinary teams, trustees voted to table a decision until their March 11 meeting.

The discussion began when a board member asked the board to formally designate the superintendent as the board’s representative in determining whether an incident met the statutory definition of physical assault. The request grew out of a specific grievance filed by the Saline Education Association about staff injuries and differences over whether particular incidents were intentional.

Board members and union representatives debated two distinct questions: whether to adopt the language of the Michigan statute that defines physical assault — as discussed in the meeting, "physical assault means intentionally causing or attempting to cause physical harm to another through force or violence" — and who should interpret the statutory term "intentional" in practice. The grievance chair told trustees the union’s concern was not to rewrite the statutory definition but to clarify who decides how the definition is applied in particular incidents.

Several trustees raised procedural and due-process concerns, including whether the board should retain authority or formally delegate it to the superintendent, and whether the decision should be handled through the contract grievance process or reviewed by the policy or grievance committees. Student Representative Thomas asked for clarification about whether teams (for example, an IEP team) would still evaluate whether conduct was a manifestation of a student's disability; district leaders said that teams would continue to perform manifestation determinations and that the board or its designee would address the legal threshold of intent in staff-assault evaluations.

Trustees requested more time and information, including additional background from both the union and district legal counsel. After debate, the board voted to table the item until March 11; that motion carried (recorded vote 5–1). No change to district policy or procedure was adopted during the Feb. 25 meeting.

Why it matters: How the district defines and determines whether student behavior constitutes an intentional assault affects disciplinary outcomes, the application of IDEA and manifestation procedures, employee protections, and the grievance process between the district and the union.

What to watch: Trustees asked for more information and expected further discussion at the March 11 meeting; the union's grievance status and any procedural language changes will be the subject of follow-up meetings between the district and SEA representatives.

Meeting evidence: The transcript records extended discussion of the grievance, the legal definition quoted from Michigan statute, and the board's 5–1 vote to table the decision until the next meeting.