Board members call AR language defining 'misconduct' confusing; propose bulleted rewrite

Several board members and staff told the workshop the misconduct definition in the AR reads confusingly and could be misinterpreted. One staff participant described the paragraph as "poorly written," and members recommended rewriting the clause with semicolons or bullets to separate the tests for misconduct.

The workshop dissected examples — verbal, physical, written or electronic communications involving students — and noted the draft's structure (multiple "ors" and a final clause that itself contains an "or") made it hard to tell whether the AR intended conjunctive or disjunctive elements. Participants suggested restructuring the language to list the covered conduct types clearly and then specify the effects that would qualify behavior as misconduct. Several speakers recommended sourcing model language from OSBA but ensuring any template aligns precisely with state law and district policy.

Staff agreed to propose a rewritten paragraph (bulletized or with clearer punctuation) and to research OSBA/model text so the AR's meaning is unambiguous when it returns to the board.