Law professor urges clearer standard of proof in staff harassment policy during first reading

Summary

Tara Purvis, who identified herself as a law professor in public comment, asked the board to specify the standard of proof (she recommended 'preponderance of the evidence') in the staff harassment policy that is on first reading; the policy committee clarified that checkboxes for proof standards are typically shown at second reading.

During the agenda‑item public comment period on March 17, Tara Purvis identified herself as a law professor and urged the board to specify the standard of proof in the staff harassment policy that is on first reading.

"There are check boxes for the standard of proof, which I believe should indicate which one — I would say preponderance of the evidence," Purvis told the board, referring to language in the draft harassment policy on the agenda.

Ms. Murano, who presented the policy committee update, responded that for first reading the committee does not show the finalized checkboxes, because details are still under discussion; the committee intends to display that information at second reading.

The board proceeded with a routine vote to approve the item for first reading; any specific changes (including the standard of proof) would be addressed at second reading and reflected on the policy documents brought back to the board.