Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parent raises student‑safety concerns during SCUC ISD public comments
Summary
A parent described an alleged unsupervised bullying incident involving his daughter and requested district follow‑up; board described public comment rules and indicated policies for addressing complaints.
A parent told the SCHERTZ‑CIBOLO‑UNIVERSAL CITY ISD board during public comment that his family has growing safety concerns after an alleged bullying incident at a junior high school in which staff did not intervene.
Dennis Williams introduced himself as “the father to two daughters, one who graduated the district and another who is a student at Dobie Junior High,” and said he was addressing “a growing concern regarding the safety and well‑being of students throughout the school district.” Williams said incidents range “from bullying to terroristic threats” and told the board his youngest daughter “was the subject of an altercation in bullying at school.” He said, in his view, students were “roaming freely throughout the hallways during class, unchallenged by teachers” and that teachers were “complacent in their supervisory duties,” including one incident he said happened “right in front of a teacher’s desk” with no intervention.
Williams said he reported the incident to the vice principal and principal and left a message with the district but had not received promised follow‑up. He asked the board to review the district’s policies and take action to ensure student safety.
At the start of the public‑comment period the board read a standard statement describing public comment rules and limits, citing board policy BED (local) and related administrative regulations. The board noted that complaints about individual personnel or students are discouraged in public session and that many formal complaints require following established policies (the board referenced district complaint policies in its reading of the public‑comment rules).
The board did not take action on the individual complaint during the public comment period. Administrators later presented other agenda items for which trustees asked questions, and the meeting proceeded. No board member attributed follow‑up in open session to the Williams comment, and the transcript shows no recorded disciplinary action or formal directive on that comment at this meeting.
