Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campus Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board questions 'should' vs. 'shall' wording in proposed campus security policy
Summary
During the first reading of revised Board Policy 35.15 Nov. 12, trustees raised concerns about staff‑reporting language that uses 'should' rather than 'shall' for certain reporting obligations and asked staff to revisit CSBA‑recommended wording.
The board conducted a first reading of proposed revisions to Board Policy 35.15 (Campus Security) on Nov. 12 and focused on language governing incident reporting and surveillance.
A trustee asked whether the policy's phrase "employees should also notify their supervisor" should be stronger: "Could that be a shall, not a should?" she asked, pressing staff to consider whether the wording creates an enforceable reporting obligation. Staff said they would check CSBA language and consult with Jim Anderson and return with recommended edits. "I'll reconnect with Jim, and we'll take another look at the 2 shoulds," staff replied.
The policy revision aligns site‑level safety plans, clarifies camera placement and signage, and explicitly states that district cameras do not have audio capability. Trustees discussed tradeoffs between a prescriptive 'shall' that implies an accountability mechanism and a 'should' that sets expectations without added enforcement language. Staff indicated the item will return for board action after further review.
