Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Policy committee advances redlines for community policies but holds ‘shall’→‘will’ change and flags volunteer fingerprinting conflict
Loading...
Summary
Committee members agreed to refer most section‑7 language updates and rescissions to the full board for first reading, but deferred a systemic swap of “shall” to “will” pending placement of clarifying language in the policy‑on‑policies and asked staff/legal to reconcile volunteer rules with fingerprinting requirements that reference 'unsupervised contact.'
The Portland SD 1J Board of Education policy committee spent its March meeting reviewing redline edits to community policies (section 7 of the board manual), agreeing to send most non‑substantive language updates and several rescissions to the full board for first reading while pausing on changes that could have legal consequences.
Chair Michelle DePass said staff prepared initial redline drafts focused on formatting, capitalization, department names, and inclusive language, and noted comparable policies at the Oregon School Boards Association and Salem‑Keizer District were used for comparison. The committee agreed to begin with section 7 (community policies) because much of it had not been reviewed in years.
Directors and legal counsel walked through specific edits: replacing the word “district” with “PPS” for consistency, updating department names, deleting expired references, and rescinding outdated policies (for example, the parental and family involvement policy and a community‑sponsored contest policy recommended for rescission). The committee generally approved these non‑substantive changes and planned to refer them to the full board for first reading.
A substantive dispute arose over replacing the legal term “shall” with the more modern “will.” Director Stephanie Englesman said legal counsel had advised there is a difference in legal effect between “shall” and “will” and asked that the committee not proceed without adding a single clarifying sentence in the policy‑on‑policies (section 1) that would explain the committee’s intent where wording has been modernized. Legal counsel recommended placing that clarification once in the policies‑about‑policies section rather than repeating it throughout the manual; the committee agreed to schedule the policy‑on‑policies for discussion and to avoid making the systemic swap before the full‑board review.
The committee also examined volunteer policy changes and flagged a potential conflict with an existing administrative policy on fingerprinting and criminal history verification (policy 5.10140). Director Englesman said her reading suggested an older statement allowed“direct unsupervised contact” language, while new volunteer language requires volunteers to operate "under the direction of a staff member...within sight or sound of a staff member." Legal counsel clarified the district does not intend to permit unsupervised contact but still requires fingerprint‑based criminal history verification for anyone the district determines may have direct unsupervised contact with students — a protective measure should such contact ever occur. Staff agreed to review 5.10140 and related section‑5 policies to ensure there are no unintended gaps or contradictions before the committee advances the volunteer updates.
The committee also asked staff to obtain the district foundation’s articles of incorporation and to analyze the dissolution provisions and asset disposition language; paragraph deletions in the foundation policy were recommended as part of the redline.
Next steps: most section‑7 updates will be referred to the full board for first reading; the policy‑on‑policies item and the volunteer/fingerprint clarification will be scheduled for additional legal review and returned to committee prior to referral.
