Board amends leave policy to include guardians, allows multiple short foster placements up to six weeks
Summary
The Sumner County Board approved a revision to policy 05/2001 Nov. 18 to add guardians alongside foster parents and to permit multiple placements within a calendar year so long as paid leave does not exceed six total weeks; a public commenter who is a guardian described the personal need for the change.
The Sumner County Board of Education voted Nov. 18 to revise its leave policy to include guardians alongside foster parents and to allow multiple foster or guardianship placements within a calendar year provided the total paid leave does not exceed six weeks.
The change came after staff asked the board to align policy language with state requirements and to extend parity to guardians. During discussion, a board member moved an amendment to permit more than one placement in a year so long as the employee’s total paid leave remains capped at six weeks; that amendment passed on a voice vote and the main motion then passed.
Public comment and context: Eva Kidder, who identified herself as a Sumner County teacher and guardian, told the board about gaining permanent custody of two children and the caregiving demands that accompany that role. Kidder said she has had “40 appointments in my family” this semester alone and thanked the board for considering guardians in paid leave policy. Her remarks were made before the board’s policy vote.
What was decided: The approved revision adds guardians to the category of employees eligible for paid parental leave for foster or guardianship placements and clarifies that multiple placements are allowable provided total paid leave for those placements does not exceed six weeks in the calendar year. Board members also noted that the state will reimburse the district for certified staff under state rules, and the board affirmed the district’s policy to cover other employees beyond the state reimbursement rules.
Board procedure: The amendment was proposed, seconded, debated briefly for placement wording and sibling placement issues, and approved by voice vote. The board’s action was procedural (policy revision) and not a budget appropriation.
The board did not provide an exact tally of aye/no votes in the public record; minutes record the motion and that the amendment and the main motion carried.
