Parent raises concerns about breath‑sampling device at school Mum Ball; community members praise teachers and leadership
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
During public comment, a resident alleged that students were required to use a breath‑sampling device at a recent Mum Ball, raising legal and privacy concerns; other speakers praised district leadership, teachers and community programs.
A public commenter at the Oct. 14 board meeting alleged that a breath‑sampling device was used during a school Mum Ball and said the device was deployed without adequate notice or calibration, prompting concerns about student rights and staff training.
Greg Stewart said that during the Mum Ball a teacher “was forcing students into blowing into some sort of a breath device” and expressed concern about whether the device was calibrated and whether administrators or staff had reasonable suspicion to require testing. Stewart said he collected photos and videos showing multiple false positives and said the practice raised Fourth Amendment‑style concerns about searches and coerced testing of students.
Other public comments during the recognition section included community praise for the superintendent and for district teachers. One speaker identified as Allen (executive director of a local youth organization) and speaker Andrea Viviani, a 20‑year teacher and parent, both thanked district staff for leadership, support and continuing student involvement in athletics and activities.
Board response and context: Board members acknowledged the comments and encouraged cautious review of new practices. The meeting record does not show a board investigation or immediate administrative action taken in open session stemming from the Mum Ball comment; the speaker urged the board to “use caution, maybe have a discussion on it.”
What the board did not say: No representative at the meeting provided details about who purchased or authorized the device, whether the device was part of district policy, or whether any calibration or training records exist. The commenter said no policy was found in the district policy manual and recommended the board discuss the matter.
Next steps: The public comment prompted no formal board motion at the open meeting, but the board noted the concern and will consider it as part of ongoing oversight and review processes.