Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement Notification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Superintendent says immigration-enforcement detainment did not occur on district property; cites AB 49, SB 98 notification rules
Summary
Robla USD Superintendent clarified that an immigration-enforcement detainment happened at a parent’s home, not on school property, and reminded the community that AB 49 and SB 98 require a court order for campus entry and a district notification when that occurs.
Robla Unified School District Superintendent told the board that recent social-media posts mischaracterizing an immigration-enforcement incident caused unnecessary concern and harm, and that the district wanted to correct the record.
“We received a lot of calls and our staff had to ensure that nothing happened on our school, on any of our campuses,” the Superintendent said, and reiterated that the detainment occurred at a parent’s home, not on district property. She said district communications would make clear when any enforcement action on district property is based on an official judicial warrant or court order.
The Superintendent cited AB 49 and SB 98 while explaining notification requirements: AB 49 permits immigration-enforcement personnel on campus only with a judicial warrant or court order, and SB 98 requires the district to notify the school community (parents, guardians, administrators, teachers and staff) when such an entry occurs, including when and where it happened.
She urged families to rely on direct communications from the district. “If you didn’t receive a communication from the district office, then it did not happen in our district,” she said.
The Superintendent also announced upcoming district events and calendar notes, including a data workshop, a Thanksgiving turkey drive on Nov. 21 at Main Avenue, parent conferences Nov. 24–25 (no school for students), a districtwide resource fair on Dec. 2, and that the board will select officers at the next meeting on Dec. 11.
The board took no separate formal action on the clarification; the remarks were delivered as part of the Superintendent’s report to inform the community and to explain legally required notifications under state law.
