Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cell Phone Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RSU 18 holds first reading of state-mandated bell-to‑bell cell‑phone ban; board debates enforcement details
Summary
The board conducted a first reading of a state‑required bell‑to‑bell prohibition on personal electronic devices. Members agreed to meet the August 1 deadline for adopting a policy while continuing committee work and public input on implementation, storage and special‑case exceptions.
At a lengthy first reading, the RSU 18 board discussed a state‑mandated bell‑to‑bell prohibition on student personal electronic devices and split over how prescriptive the policy should be.
Chelsea, a board member who taught middle school, urged stronger, clearer language about storage, powered‑off requirements and differences by developmental level, and pointed out the district’s limited implementation funding (Chelsea cited a received state amount of $5,261). Other board members and administrators said the district must adopt a policy by the state deadline of Aug. 1 and that detailed procedures should be developed by administrators and brought back to the board for review and possible revision.
Participants debated specific items including whether the policy should require devices to be powered off, where devices should be stored (examples included lockers or “yonder pouches”), handling of medical or safety exceptions, and how to describe progressive consequences for repeated violations. Some members proposed removing procedural language from the policy draft and delegating procedures to the superintendent and building administrators; others suggested the board should assert its intent more clearly and direct administration to report back.
Administrators cautioned against drafting procedures at the board level that would be hard to operationalize at each school; they recommended an ad‑hoc working group or a policy‑committee process that includes classroom staff, administrators and at least one board member so the district can present implementable procedures to the public. Several board members supported scheduling public forums or committee meetings to solicit parent, student and staff input before finalizing procedures.
The board did not vote on final language during the first reading. The group agreed to work rapidly: adopt policy text sufficient to meet the state deadline and continue committee and public work on implementation and enforcement details in July and August.
