Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District reviews draft NEOLA policy to restrict staff‑student electronic communications
Summary
Mr. Garner presented a draft district‑custom NEOLA policy that would require district‑approved, archivable tools for staff–student communications and prohibit use of personal phones for official student contact.
Mr. Garner presented a draft, district‑custom NEOLA policy on electronic communications between staff and students and told the Personnel Policy Curriculum Committee that the draft was developed after outreach to neighboring districts and the Department of Public Instruction.
"If you look at the first page, you'll see, the status. It's a district custom," Garner said, adding the draft had been vetted by legal counsel and by Neola representatives. The draft emphasizes general standards of respectful, appropriate communications, requires a district‑approved communication tool ("it would not be a personal cell phone"), and specifies that communications will be archivable and traceable as district records.
The policy also outlines prohibited content, guidance on non‑district personal relationships (for example, when staff are parents or have non‑work friendships with families), and a reporting mechanism and consequences for violations. Garner said one cross‑reference and minor word‑smithing remained; he will consult legal counsel and bring the revised draft back to the PPC for a first reading before forwarding to the full board.
Committee members asked whether the policy should explicitly define "staff" to include coaches and volunteers. Garner and other staff agreed that the policy should align with other board definitions and that volunteers who sign district agreements may need explicit coverage. Multiple members recommended that every employee be required to acknowledge and sign the policy electronically if adopted, with principals reviewing the policy with building staff.
There was broad support from committee members for the draft. Garner described the next steps: refine wording with legal counsel (Scott Brown), present the draft for a first reading at PPC and then move it to the board if the committee approves the language.
The committee did not take a formal vote on the policy on Jan. 6; Garner said further word‑smithing and a first reading would follow before board consideration.
