Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy Background Checks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lynchburg school board pulls volunteer‑background policy for legal review after debate over felony language
Summary
After extended debate over whether non‑barrier felonies should be eligible for board review, the Lynchburg City Public Schools School Board voted to pull proposed revisions to policy IICB‑R and send them back to the HR policy work group and the division attorney for redrafting.
The Lynchburg City Public Schools School Board voted to pull proposed revisions to policy IICB‑R and asked the HR policy work group and the division attorney to reexamine the language before the policy returns to the full board.
The policy under review would change who can grant exceptions for certain criminal convictions for people who seek to work or volunteer in schools. Staff and board members debated whether the draft language incorrectly limited eligibility for review to only those with qualifying misdemeanors and excluded non‑barrier felonies that are not specifically disqualifying under state law.
"I don't set policy," said Doctor Midgett, who introduced the item and said the recommended change would move exceptional decisions to the school board rather than leave them solely to the superintendent. Staff member Miss Brown read and summarized the applicable state law, noting, "Virginia Code §63.2‑1719 defines barrier crimes as specific criminal offenses that prevent individuals from obtaining approval to work in child welfare agencies, foster homes, or adoptive homes," and that the statute does not automatically classify every felony as a barrier crime.
Board members argued over newly inserted language that would require a disqualifying conviction to be a misdemeanor to be eligible for reconsideration. Several members said that a narrow ‘‘misdemeanor’’ requirement could prevent the board from considering nonviolent felonies committed many years earlier (for example, certain financial offenses) that are not defined as barrier crimes. A board member gave a hypothetical: "You bought a stock that was insider trading... it was a violation of IRS law and it was a felony," and urged that such cases be eligible for board review after an elapsed period.
After discussion, a member moved to pull the IICB‑R revision so the HR policy work group could revisit it with the division attorney; another member seconded the motion. The clerk called the roll and the motion passed.
The board did not adopt the policy at the meeting; staff were directed to return the item after committee review and legal consultation.
The discussion and the decision to pause action reflect the board's effort to balance statutory disqualifiers ("barrier crimes") with opportunities to review other older, non‑barrier felony convictions at the board level.
