RSU 04 board approves first reading of cell‑phone policy after debate over confiscation and liability

The RSU 04 Board of Directors approved a first reading of policy JJ — "cell phones and other personal electronic devices in school" — following a prolonged discussion about implementation, liabilities and communication with families.

Superintendent Marco opened the discussion by describing the district's intention to follow the statute and keep the local policy as minimal and flexible as possible, and he thanked staff and families for their support. The board spent most of the meeting debating how the policy will be enforced during the school day (the statute uses a "bell‑to‑bell" standard), what exceptions should exist for medical or emergency contact, and what procedural safeguards should govern the district taking possession of a device.

Board member Scott said the statute arrived via a supplemental budget measure and criticized the process that led to its enactment, saying educators and local leaders had little opportunity to provide input. That concern drove much of the conversation about crafting local language that does not exceed state requirements while protecting students and staff. The board agreed to preserve administrative discretion for building principals to make case‑by‑case exceptions.

Administrators and board members discussed multiple operational questions: whether staff will use a checklist when accepting a device to note its condition, how to avoid inconsistent enforcement across classrooms and buildings, and how to describe the district's role when it holds a device. Legal counsel had advised that the district is not automatically liable for items students bring onto school property, but several members pushed for clearer language. The board asked staff to change the draft wording from "responsible" to the stronger legal term "liable" where appropriate, and to consider alternative phrasing (for example, "relinquish control of the device to administration") to avoid the more aggressive connotation of the word "confiscated."

Board member John, speaking from an administrator's perspective, said, "I don't want their phone. I really don't. But I have to follow the policy," noting the district's priority to preserve positive relationships with students while enforcing the rule. Members also asked that the final package include clear cross‑references to the student handbook and that family communications explicitly state that parents can contact students via school email and apps (for example, the district's parent communication app), and that medical exemptions will be accommodated.

No roll‑call tallies were recorded in the transcript for the vote on the first reading; the board moved and approved the item with the understanding that edits discussed during the meeting will be incorporated and the policy will return for a second reading. Administrators said they will prepare the revised text, update related handbook language and messaging for families, and bring the item back to the board for final action.

Procedural votes earlier in the meeting included authorization for the superintendent to issue contracts during July–August, appointment of Carol Mansfield, MD, as school physician under Title 20‑A §6402‑A, and formal entry of the computation and declaration of votes for the SRRF and the budget; those items were approved without extended debate.

The board also received standard end‑of‑year reports from directors on curriculum, special education compliance preparations, device collection, transportation drills, nutrition service totals and maintenance projects. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:57 p.m.