Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables proposed non‑fraternization policy after concerns about scope and emergency communications
Summary
Trustees debated a draft non‑fraternization policy that would limit staff–student communications and require district‑managed channels. Members raised concerns about overbreadth, crisis response gaps and impacts on coaches/tutors; the board voted to table the policy and asked for legal review and clearer guardrails.
The Fayetteville‑Manlius Board of Education tabled a proposed non‑fraternization policy after an extended debate over how the draft would regulate staff–student communications.
The draft policy (second reading) included provisions that would require district‑managed communication tools when staff contact students and broadly prohibit personal devices for interacting with students on social media or by text. Several board members and administrators said they supported stronger guardrails but worried the language as written could unintentionally prevent necessary or appropriate communications.
Board members raised several concerns in public debate: the policy appeared to ban many routine, non‑emergency messages and could limit coaches, advisors and off‑season programs who communicate outside of school channels; it might duplicate mandatory‑reporting requirements and use of the legal term "shall" could create overly prescriptive disciplinary duties; teachers and staff do not uniformly have district phones and switching to a district‑managed app could be impractical without clear supports. One trustee said the policy risks "catching" permissible exchanges between staff and students and called for clearer delineation between official district business and private, contracted activities such as private music lessons or outside tutoring.
Administrators and board members emphasized the need for exceptions in crisis situations and for tools that meet students where they are; several noted that students often do not check email and that reliance on email alone could hamper timely response to urgent messages.
Outcome: The board voted to table the policy and requested legal counsel review, better drafting of exceptions and guardrails (including clarifying how private off‑season programs and tutors are addressed), and a plan for district‑managed communication tools (for example, expanded use of ParentSquare or district email) before returning the draft to the board.
Next steps: Policy committee members will seek legal review and draft clearer language that distinguishes routine school communications from prohibited conduct and sets out acceptable official channels and emergency exceptions.
