Elkhorn Area School District reviews draft personnel, safety and conduct policies; Act 57 language to be added

Elkhorn Area School District board members and staff spent a working session reviewing proposed revisions to the district's personnel and conduct policies on Jan. 29, focusing on procedures for job sharing, criminal-history reporting, nondiscrimination notices, discipline documentation, drug testing and volunteer background checks. The group agreed to add legal language required by Act 57 and to table a weapons-policy item for further input.

The meeting opened with a scheduling change to move future policy-review meetings to 11 a.m., after Speaker 1 said a recurring 1 p.m. commitment would conflict with the board's prior noon start. "Well, then we should probably change the meeting times for future," Speaker 2 said, and attendees confirmed the calendar invites would be updated.

The policy review began with the 3000 series covering professional staff. Speaker 3 said a recent review with outside counsel Tim Onslog showed only three provisions in the professional-staff section differ from the support-staff (4000) series and recommended aligning the two where appropriate. On job sharing (policy 3120), Speaker 3 recommended the board not adopt a formal job-sharing policy for professional staff, citing scheduling, classroom continuity and benefit-allocation concerns; the board agreed to omit any explicit encouragement for job sharing and instead rely on creating appropriate part-time positions when needed.

On criminal-history reporting and employee self-reporting (policy 3121), attendees reviewed restructuring suggestions and affirmed current screening practices. The nondiscrimination and equal-employment-opportunity draft (policy 3122) raised a practical question about a line requiring the district to publish compliance-officer names and contact information "on the district's website, posted throughout the district." Speaker 6 proposed simplifying the language to publish the officers on the district website, and the board asked staff to align the draft with the administrative policy.

The board also discussed discipline and documentation. Speakers described the district's progressive-discipline approach — oral reprimand, written warning, suspension and, for repeated or severe issues, termination — and clarified that oral reprimands are typically documented at the supervisor level rather than immediately placed in an employee personnel file. Speaker 3 noted the district plans to use MaxEnt to record complaint investigations and discipline outcomes so the superintendent and administration can review actions and follow up when needed.

A major procedural clarification involved reductions in staff and recall rights. The draft offers options for sequencing reductions (qualifications, evaluations, supervisor input, then seniority) and alternative recall schemes. Speaker 3 said the draft language distinguishing between whether laid-off staff "shall have no right to be contacted" versus allowing them to "apply" was legalese; the board agreed to rephrase the section so that, if selected, a clear progression and explanation of recall rights is laid out.

Speakers raised statutory and practical questions about preemployment physicals and drug testing. Speaker 6 reminded the group that some preemployment physical-exam requirements flow from state statute and job-specific duties (for example, custodial lift testing). On drug screening, speakers noted uncertainty about the legality of blanket preemployment drug testing by a government employer for all positions; they discussed testing for safety-sensitive roles (transportation) and whether THC screening is included. "Do bus drivers when they do the drug testing, is THC included on that or not?" Speaker 3 asked; attendees agreed to confirm testing standards for drivers and other safety-sensitive positions with peer districts and legal counsel.

Act 57, a state law change discussed during the session, requires timely parental notification when an allegation of improper staff-to-student contact is reported. As Speaker 3 explained: "By 5PM of the night the allegation was made or you're informed of, you have to notify the parents of the allegation." The board asked staff to incorporate the new Act 57 language into the draft and to tighten volunteer-background-check procedures to avoid missed notifications for events where volunteers were present.

On conduct-related items, the board reviewed staff-ethics language intended to bar employees from using their position to secure preferential treatment for political or religious groups while confirming that formal facility rentals by outside groups remain permissible. The board also considered a staff-gifts policy and requested the definition of "nominal" be clarified in the separate gifts policy (the group discussed numerical thresholds elsewhere in the manual). The draft tobacco-and-nicotine policy, which prohibits use of tobacco products on school property, was affirmed while several members noted practical enforcement challenges at athletic and after-hours events.

The weapons policy prompted extended discussion but was tabled for a future meeting. The draft would generally bar weapons on school property with limited exceptions (off-duty law enforcement, controlled hunter-safety instruction, and properly managed props such as starter pistols during athletic events). Board members expressed concern about exceptions, secure storage and the district's liability and asked staff to bring back a tighter, exception-focused version with legal input.

The meeting ended with staff directed to incorporate Tim's final edits, add Act 57 language, confirm testing expectations for safety-sensitive positions, and return the weapons item and any other tabled sections at a later meeting. The board also approved moving routine policy-review meetings to 11 a.m.