Board takes first reading of immigration-enforcement response policy; community urges mandatory staff training and coordinated drills
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Trustees reviewed a first reading of revised Board Policy 5145.13 and a new administrative regulation on responses to immigration enforcement; community members asked that staff training be mandatory and that the district coordinate drills and interagency planning to protect students and families.
At a first reading Thursday night, Petaluma City Schools presented revised Board Policy 5145.13 and an accompanying administrative regulation intended to guide how schools respond if immigration-enforcement agents appear on or near campus.
Assistant Superintendent Sanchez Mosley (named in public remarks) and district staff described the district’s current approach: administrators have received legal briefings and a slide deck to share with staff, schools must include communication protocols in safety plans, and the district is exploring Medi-Cal billing for mental-health services and other funding strategies.
Community members urged stronger, mandatory training and explicit commitments to coordinate drills and interagency planning. Justin Hansel Durban, a parent and co-facilitator at Mary Collins-Cherry Valley, said the revised procedures weakened earlier language on training: “It used to say staff shall receive training; now it says they may provide training. I think it still should say shall if we can,” he told trustees.
Other public speakers called for clear, concrete language that gives families confidence. Heather Gallagher, a parent, urged the board to adopt wording similar to Santa Rosa Junior College’s policy that affirms students’ right to privacy and to attend campus free from harassment.
Board discussion focused on operational steps and transparency: trustees asked staff to add measurable training requirements for all adults on campus (not just teachers), to run scenario-based drills with North Bay Security and site teams, and to coordinate planning with local agencies including the Petaluma Police Department and county partners. Staff described the police department’s stated posture: local police would support when there is an imminent public-safety threat, but they are not part of ICE enforcement operations.
Next steps: District staff will bring the policy and regulation back for a second reading at the February 9 meeting and were asked to incorporate community revisions, strengthen training language from "may" to "shall" where practicable, and provide a timeline for staff drills and parent communications.
Speakers quoted in this story are from the Petaluma City Schools board meeting record.