Board reviews sweeping staff‑conduct policy update; members ask for clarifications

The board conducted a line‑by‑line first reading of policy GBEBB, which updates the district’s staff conduct and ethical‑misconduct rules to incorporate statutory requirements.

Presenter Mr. Perio told the board the draft incorporates House Bill 128 and related NMAC language and expands “ethical misconduct” standards to cover not only employees but also volunteers, contractors and other LCPS partners. He highlighted sections that use direct statutory language and recommended a number of grammatical and clarity edits for second reading (for example, replacing gendered pronouns and removing an erroneous word in 4C10).

Board members discussed several substantive issues at length:

• Giving rides to students: The draft follows NMAC language that prohibits offering rides except in “absolute unavoidable” circumstances. Several board members raised liability and safety concerns, suggested adding documentation requirements or limited exceptions (for example, parental permission or extreme circumstances), and asked whether the district should adopt stricter prohibitions.

• Reporting timelines and ‘immediately’: Members pressed for clarity about how ‘‘immediately’’ to report to the superintendent or the Public Education Department (PED) is defined and whether reporting to an administrator fulfills the duty to report; counsel explained statute sets reporting duties and the district should be cautious about redefining statutory text but may add clarifying regulation.

• Electronic communications and social media: Board members requested cross‑references to existing policy GBEE (internet and electronic communication) and recommended tightening language to restrict non‑educational communications.

• Grooming, undue influence and scope: Members asked that the policy be explicit about inappropriate contact anywhere (on and off campus), and counsel noted the draft expands ethical standards formerly limited to licensed employees.

Mr. Perio said staff would incorporate the board’s wording suggestions (commas, wording such as “establish” rather than “mandate,” and clearer sentences), add recommended cross‑references, include planned self‑reporting language for staff arrests/charges for the second reading, and provide comparisons to the professional‑standards language the board previously adopted so members can see what was included or omitted.

Board members asked the administration to preserve statutory meaning where required and to return with a redline that shows how proposed edits affect the statutory language. The policy will return for second reading with the requested clarifications.