Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trustee Background Checks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boerne ISD trustees consider voluntary background checks for candidates and current trustees
Summary
Trustees discussed a draft resolution urging candidates and current trustees to undergo the same background checks used for staff and volunteers, weighing confidentiality limits, levels of checks, and whether results should be public. Legal guidance was requested before any operational proposal.
Boerne ISD trustees on June 1 discussed a draft resolution that would encourage — but not require — candidates for the Boerne ISD Board of Trustees and current trustees to submit to background checks comparable to those run for staff and volunteers.
Dr. Craft introduced the concept, saying trustees already sign a code of ethics and that voters deserve to know whether candidates have criminal histories or records of financial mismanagement. The draft resolution cites recent state action (SB 271) and recommends candidates and trustees “undergo the same background check that all applicants seeking employment must undergo.”
Board members pressed staff on practical differences among checks. Jill and other administrators explained the district uses three levels: a Raptor check for visitors (ID scan), a more extensive name-based volunteer check, and fingerprint-based staff checks that provide additional criminal-history detail. They emphasized that fingerprint results are confidential under CJIS rules and cannot be publicly disclosed by the district; an individual who receives a fingerprint “hit” must request their own copy.
Trustees debated whether results should be made public and whether a requirement would be enforceable. Several trustees supported a voluntary approach that includes financial-screening language and public disclosure only if lawful. Carllin Frier and Sarah Falenberry said they favor including a financial component in addition to criminal checks; others noted that candidates could explain past incidents that are many years old.
The board did not take formal action. Trustees directed staff to seek legal guidance on how a voluntary program could be operationalized, whether results could be shared with the public, and how to define the appropriate level of check for candidates versus sitting trustees. The matter will return for further discussion at a future meeting and be included in board communications and the next agenda packet.
Trustees emphasized they were discussing options, not adopting policy at the workshop. The board is scheduled to continue budget and agenda business at its June 15 meeting.
