Parents press one‑strike policy as Capitan Municipal Schools board reviews weapons policy

CAPITAN, N.M. — At a work session called to gather public comment on Board Policy J 3,100 (weapons in school), parents urged the Capitan Municipal Schools board to adopt a strict one‑strike expulsion policy for firearms, while district staff and the board’s legal counsel said state law and practical staffing limits complicate any immediate policy change.

"If you're found to have brought a firearm or an explosive device onto campus, it should be a one‑strike policy. You should be gone. Period," said John, a parent who spoke at the session, arguing a permanent expulsion would deter weapons on campus. John also said the district needs clearer, mandatory follow‑up measures so the public understands possible consequences.

District staff summarized results from a community questionnaire and a short follow‑up discussion. "Thirty‑eight respondents participated in the survey — roughly three students, three to four staff members, and the remainder parents — and about 94.7% agreed with the district’s current definition of a firearm," said Mr. Lee, a district staff member who presented the survey findings. He said 57.9% of respondents thought firearms should be treated differently from other weapons and that 84.2% believed a full‑time (40‑hour) school resource officer (SRO) provides assurance of a safe environment.

Mr. Lee and other staff described operational limits the district faces: the current security liaison works roughly 20 hours a week; sourcing a full‑time SRO is constrained by regional law‑enforcement availability; and courthouse‑style X‑ray/magnetometer screening and dedicated staffing can carry significant costs and logistical challenges for a small district with multiple building entrances.

"We know what the cost is — we're paying $36,000 a year for the current one, so double it — but availability is the problem," Mr. Lee said, noting the district believes its budget could sustain a full‑time position but that finding a candidate is the bigger hurdle.

Speakers proposed less costly or lower‑visibility measures to increase safety and deterrence: closing certain gates during recess and lunch, positioning existing security staff at arrival and dismissal points, expanding visible surveillance coverage in blind spots, and pursuing volunteer programs that recruit retired law enforcement or parents for supervised presence during high‑risk times. Candra Acuna, a community member, said she spoke with the police chief, who told her the department is staffed and that community candidates could be available to serve as SROs.

Public commenters also pressed the board on communication and transparency after incidents. Several said they felt the district did not provide enough information; staff and the board emphasized privacy and statutory limits. "There are limits to what the district can release without identifying students," Mr. Lee said, and legal counsel warned about the risks of divulging details in a small community where identities are easily inferred.

Roxy, the board’s legal counsel, advised that New Mexico law requires balancing student access to education with school safety and that a district’s policy must align with statutes and administrative code. Counsel told the board that state law does not require districts to continue providing educational programming to students expelled permanently, except for students served under an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or Section 504 plan. "If a student is expelled permanently, the law in the state of New Mexico does not require continuing education unless the student is an IEP or 504 student," Roxy said.

Board members and staff discussed administrative reintegration tools used when students return from long suspensions — for example, movement restrictions, assigned escorts, discipline contracts and heightened monitoring — and clarified that many of those measures are applied at administrative discretion rather than spelled out in policy.

No formal motions or votes took place during the work session. The board president said the matter will return to a regular meeting for further discussion and attorney review before any policy revisions are adopted.

The board asked members of the public to sign in if they wished to speak and invited continued input as staff and counsel draft potential changes for later consideration.