Committee reviews student-search and controlled-substances policy revisions; staff to tidy language

The committee conducted first readings of interconnected discipline-related policies — Policy 02/26 (student searches), Policy 02/27 (controlled substances) and Policy 03/51 (staff controlled-substances) — and directed staff to clarify legal thresholds, cross-policy consistency and administrative regulations before the next meeting.

Staff explained that the search procedures in the proposed 02/26 AR align with state law standards: individualized searches require reasonable suspicion, while building- or schoolwide searches proceed under a different standard. Committee members asked whether parents must be present for searches. Staff clarified that, in most school-administered searches and interviews under reasonable suspicion, parents are entitled to notice but are not required to be present; law-enforcement searches follow criminal-procedure rules and are governed by separate memoranda of understanding when police are involved.

Discussion also focused on the district’s jurisdiction for off-campus conduct. Staff said the district retains authority in limited circumstances — for example, when off-campus conduct is linked to school activity (an away game or field trip) or when off-campus actions materially affect school safety or operations — and acknowledged that courts sometimes test these limits. Committee members asked staff to tighten policy language to reduce litigation risk by specifying when off-campus conduct will be subject to school discipline.

On controlled substances, staff reported edits to align disciplinary consequences across the controlled-substances policy, the tobacco policy and the district’s discipline policy. Sale and distribution remain treated more severely than possession or use, consistent with state guidance and special-education considerations. Members noted some phrasing and formatting errors (extra conjunctions and punctuation) and asked staff to correct them prior to the second reading.

Committee members also discussed "constructive possession" language and asked staff to consider whether another term would be clearer for a policy audience; staff noted "constructive possession" is a legal term but said they would explore alternative wording for policy clarity.

Next steps: staff will correct typographical issues, clarify the AR for searches, define parental-notice expectations, review off-campus jurisdiction language and return polished drafts for the committee’s next review.