Board debates attendance enforcement after 34 referrals to prosecutors; motion would require board review before referral

The Hannibal Public Schools Board spent more than an hour examining its attendance and truancy procedures after central-office data showed 34 families had been referred to the prosecuting attorney this school year.

Board member (speaker 4) said the referrals raised questions about whether the district followed its written escalation process — which calls for a sequence of step-1, step-2 and step-3 letters, building-level interventions and, if necessary, a level-up meeting involving the juvenile office and children’s division — before sending cases to prosecutors. “It’s kind of serious business when you wind up referring people to prosecutors,” the member said, noting a discrepancy between 136 letters that would have been expected under a four-letter-per-referral calculation and 92 letters the district reported having sent.

Central-office staff (speaker 10) told the board those 92 were invitations to the intermediary level-up meeting; from that pool 58 families improved attendance and 34 continued to referral. The staff member said building-level step letters and automated calls are recorded in Infinite Campus and that administrators document phone outreach and other interventions. “Anyone that was referred to the prosecuting attorney’s office would have been through all of those steps,” the staff member said.

Board members and the public pressed for more reliable confirmation that families receive notices. One board member urged certified mail for the step-3 letter and formal service of level-up meeting notices; staff replied certified mail costs roughly $9 per letter and is often not claimed, and the district has moved to regular mail and phone notifications in part to reach families more effectively.

That exchange fed a motion from speaker 4 that, before a family is referred to the prosecutor, the family be presented to the board in closed session for review and board approval. Supporters framed the step to raise oversight of a process that can have serious legal consequences; critics warned the step could lengthen the time a student is absent while the board reviews cases.

Public commenters pressed the board for clarity and compassion. Anna Lemon (speaker 17) said some families felt “the first real point of contact that they had where they realized there was a serious issue was from the prosecutor’s office,” and described court-related recommendations she had seen in other cases. Bob Cohen (speaker 16) suggested adding text-confirmation or similar receipt mechanisms to ensure families actually get notices.

The board did not take a final vote on the proposed requirement to present families before referral during the meeting; members agreed to consider procedural options for improving notification and recordkeeping and to return the item for further discussion.

What happens next: Board members asked administration to explore options to improve verification (records in Infinite Campus, certified mail trade-offs, home-visit confirmation) and to report back with recommended changes to ensure families receive timely notice before any legal escalation.