Bartholomew Consolidated School Corp. board members approved a packet of district policies on first reading that consolidates 17 previous policies into nine, and called for a public work session to make potential changes to another that outlines guidelines for communication between board trustees and BCSC staff.
The proposed policies must receive consent from board members on two readings to be fully approved.
The documents were posted online on BCSC’s BoardDocs page for public review on Dec. 20. The second reading of the policy packet is scheduled for the school board meeting on Feb. 3.
The consolidation is part of a wider reorganization, meant to simplify and streamline BCSC’s policy structure and eliminate any redundancies, school district officials have said in earlier interviews.
Board members voted on July 15 to terminate an agreement with NEOLA, the education consulting firm that assisted with BCSC policies previously, and approve an agreement with Indianapolis-based firm Church Church Hittle and Antrim as a replacement.
The firm is managing BCSC’s board policy platform and will update policies based on changes in state and federal legislation, as well as changes in case law.
This is the third batch of policies to be consolidated after members voted to pair down 26 previous polices into 14 on Sept. 9 and more than 50 current policies into 13 on Nov. 11.
The first reading was originally scheduled for Jan. 6 but was canceled due to the snowy conditions.
The policy packet had originally included Policy A100: “Non-Discrimination & Anti-Harassment,” which was to replace 13 previous policies, but was pulled and will be revisited later, BCSC Superintendent Chad Phillips said.
“Because of the new federal Department of Education administration moving in this January, we made a decision to pull the anti-harassment (and) anti-discrimination policy, leave the existing policy in place, and we’ve been told that it’s very likely that new guidance will come out from the new administration within the next couple of months. And so we’ll bring that back in front of you when that time comes.”
The following is a list of the proposed policies, and the NEOLA policies they would be replacing:
- Policy A325: “Communicable Diseases,” replacing NEOLA policies 8450, 8453
- Policy B100: “Board Authority & Philosophy,” replacing NEOLA policies 0112, 0121, 0122, 0123
- Policy C100: “Entrance Age Requirements,” replacing NEOLA policy 5112
- Policy C275: “Test Security Provisions for Statewide Assessments,” replacing NEOLA policy 2623.01
- Policy C500: “School Trips & Privately Sponsored Activities Involving Corporation Employees & Students, replacing NEOLA policies 2340, 8460
- Policy D175: “Board-Staff Communications,” replacing NEOLA policy 4112
- Policy E225: “College & University Programs,” replacing NEOLA policy 2271
- Policy F125: “Purchasing Procedures & Capital Assets,” replacing NEOLA policies 6320, 6325, 6330, 6440
- Policy F150: “Use of Credit Cards,” replacing NEOLA policy 6423
- Policy G225: “Vehicle Idling,” replacing NEOLA 8405 (at a later date)
Phillips said NEOLA 8405 is staying in place for the time being because parts of the policy are still needed, but that it will be removed once subsequent policies are approved.
Board members will have a public work session prior to the Feb. 3 meeting on proposed policy D175, “Board-Staff Communications,” which board members Jason Major, District 1, Dale Nowlin, District 4 and Logan Schulz, District 6, had provided feedback to administrators on. Schulz made a motion to hold the work session, which was seconded by Nowlin and unanimous.
The policy states that school staff are to submit “official communications,” meaning expressions made within a staff member’s professional capacity to the school board through the superintendent. That would be done by staff members submitting what they want to communicate through their supervisor. It adds that “this policy is not intended to deny any staff member the right to take appeals to the board through established procedures or infringe on a staff member’s constitutional rights.”
In turn, the superintendent is responsible for communicating “all official messages, policies and directives of the board to staff.”
Another section entitled “Social Interaction” says that discussions between staff and board trustees outside of a school board meeting that include confidential subjects like “personnel grievances and problems, student due process, contract negotiations and litigation” would be considered unethical conduct.
One change from the previous policy is added language about public comments during a school board meeting, saying that all staff, like any other member of the public, “may make comments or present concerns to the board at a public meeting in compliance with the procedures for all other speakers,” meaning refraining from the use of specific names of students or staff members.
Major in the past has expressed a desire for changing the policy so there’s more flexibility. He’s also stated that there’s been instances of staff confiding information with him, which he then would try to redirect to the appropriate people.
“I think at some point, all of us will be in a situation where we’re not supposed to talk to people about the problems they have, but the problems will be brought to us,” Major said. “We can redirect, we can tell them to talk to other people, but at some point they’re talking to you because they don’t know that they could probably trust talking to other people.”
As an example, Major mentioned how before the holiday break he sat down with Columbus East students who had some concerns about one of their teachers.
“It’s not about undermining anybody, it’s just they don’t—for whatever reason— feel safe or comfortable talking to the person they would have to talk to,” Major told fellow trustees. “… I think that one I struggle with because, again, it tells us we can’t do that. That’s why I feel like that one should have some flexibility, especially when it’s a person that has a problem with their leader, whatever level that may be.”
Nowlin said that he didn’t have questions about the policy itself, but moreso how the information in the policies should be communicated to staff members.
“I have had a number of staff members email me or text me and say they would like to talk to me about something, but they’re not sure they’re allowed to talk to me,” Nowlin said. “.. How can they approach us? I don’t want to be unapproachable. And also, I’ve had staff members talk to me about their kids. That’s not about their position as staff and those same people think they’re not allowed to do that.”
Nowlin tacked on that “part of that goes to a history several years ago where that might have been true.”
