Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District proposes tightened ethics, background‑check and A.I. rules for employees
Summary
The district presented major revisions to its Code of Ethics and background‑screening policies, adding enforceable boundary rules, explicit prohibitions on materially false or A.I.‑generated content involving students and clarified rules on fingerprinting, reporting and removal from student contact.
Human Resources lead (Tim Kubic/Kubrick) presented a package of revisions to personnel policies that the administration said will strengthen student protections and align district procedures with state law and Auditor General recommendations.
Key changes include clarified and enforceable prohibitions on boundary‑crossing behaviors (private one‑on‑one interactions, unsolicited gifts, unauthorized transportation and off‑campus contact), a prohibition on creating or distributing materially false or misleading digital content (including AI‑generated media) involving students or employees, and stricter rules for use of district records. “These changes move us from general expectations to very clear, enforceable standards,” the HR presenter said.
The workshop also outlined operational changes: fingerprinting is reinforced as a condition of employment and is being managed through FieldPrint; an outdated annual affidavit requirement was removed because continuous monitoring systems now automatically flag new criminal charges; and the district will continue investigations when an employee resigns or retires while under inquiry. The administration described a 24‑hour removal-from‑student‑contact requirement for arrests that fall under disqualifying offenses in state statute and clarified reporting obligations to the Department of Education.
Board members pushed HR on A.I. specifics and whether possession of AI‑generated pornographic material — distinct from dissemination — should be punishable. Edwin Ferguson urged tighter definitions, particularly where images could be used to coerce minors; HR said it would sharpen language on what constitutes “use” or “distribution,” examine the district’s detection tools and return with refined language.
Board members also asked about the practical consequences of no‑contact orders and how those interact with reassignment and continued pay; HR said judicial orders vary but removal from student contact and possible unpaid suspension are among the administrative options. Several trustees praised the focus on prevention and stronger alignment with current law.
A next step identified in the workshop is to return proposed policy language for formal development and board consideration as the administration works with counsel to tighten definitions addressing A.I. possession, distribution and student conduct.
