Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Safety And Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and community members urge Chandler Unified board to address alleged student safety failures
Summary
Three public commenters at the June 25 board meeting accused district leadership of failing to respond adequately to allegations of student harm, asked for policy and investigative reforms, and requested the superintendent act before his announced retirement.
Three community members used the board's open-call public-comment period on June 25 to press the Chandler Unified School District Governing Board for action on student safety and on how the district has handled allegations of harm.
Katie McPherson, who said she spent 22 years working on a campus and that four of her children attended district schools, told the board she reported an alleged incident on March 8, 2022 and said the district's response to multiple students' reports was inadequate. "Only five of those female students were spoken to by all-male administrators. Only one student has been spoken to by a forensic detective. Eight were left to wonder if you even cared," McPherson said during her three-minute public comment.
Bridget Vega described a series of incidents she said the district had not adequately investigated or disciplined, including what she described as persistent harassment and violent conduct affecting students at several high schools. "Your leadership chose silence over safety, power over protection, reputation over responsibility," Vega said. She asked the board to prioritize transparency and to seek experts in responding to allegations.
Lou Anne Savolt, a resident of Sun Lakes, used her three minutes to urge a stronger emphasis on teaching U.S. history and civic knowledge in schools; she also criticized what she described as a board member's decision not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance earlier in the meeting.
How the board responded: Board President Serrano read the board's public-comment admonition at the meeting and reminded attendees that board members may not discuss or take legal action on items not on the published agenda except as allowed by ARS 38-431.01(H). Several board members acknowledged the seriousness of the comments and directed staff to follow up, but there were no formal motions or votes tied directly to the public comments during the meeting.
Context and next steps: Commenters asked the board to bring in outside experts and to avoid legalistic responses that, they said, prioritized the district's reputation. One speaker called for the district to meet with named external experts and legal advisors; another speaker requested the superintendent to be "an upstander, not a bystander" in his final year.
Ending: The board did not take immediate action on the specific allegations included in these comments. The public comment period concluded and the board moved on to the scheduled agenda items; members and staff indicated they would follow up on matters appropriate for staff review or future agenda items.
