Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts revised acceptable‑use policy; SRO policy revisions previewed to align with state law
Summary
The board approved an updated Acceptable Use Policy (5.24) on second reading (6–0) after committee discussion and minor edits; General Counsel Tim Palmetir also briefed trustees on proposed revisions to the school resource officer (SRO) policy (5.32) to reflect recent statutory changes and to clarify SRO roles and reporting requirements.
On policy matters the board took final action on the district’s Acceptable Use Policy and heard a first‑reading preview of revisions to its SRO (school resource officer) procedures.
Lede: By voice/roll call the board approved a revised Acceptable Use Policy (Policy 5.24) designed to clarify permitted uses of district technology, to preserve district authority to limit access where appropriate, and to require routine review.
Nut graf: General Counsel Tim Palmetir presented a first reading of proposed changes to Policy 5.32 on the use of peace officers and SROs in schools to ensure the district’s rules align with recent statutory definitions and reporting obligations; the SRO revisions were not adopted at the meeting but will return for formal action following additional review.
Acceptable Use Policy: The policy update simplified some language from the MSBA model, clarified that technology use is conditional and subject to limits for instructional integrity and privacy, and added a three‑year review cycle. The board adopted the policy on a 6–0 roll call following a motion by Director Odette and a second by Director Langenfeld.
SRO policy preview: Palmetir told trustees that modifications to the SRO policy and accompanying procedures are intended to draw a clearer line between school staff responsibilities and law‑enforcement roles, to define emergency situations and physical‑hold terminology, and to reflect statutory reporting requirements for restrictive procedures and reasonable force. The draft clarifies that SROs are not held to the exact same reasonable‑force limits as school employees because they are sworn law‑enforcement officers, and it describes when SRO intervention is appropriate.
Board process: The policy committee reviewed the proposed language on Oct. 13; the SRO revisions will be returned to the board later for a formal vote after further review and any edits.
Bottom line: Trustees adopted an updated Acceptable Use Policy immediately and received statutory‑driven updates on SRO policy that will be reconsidered in a future meeting.
