The district’s Director of Student Services, Eric Campbell, told the school board during its study session Jan. 28 that the staff policies were created to mirror the equivalent student guidelines.
“We’ve had one for the students, and we wanted to create one that was specific to adults,” he said. “This is directed towards what would happen and the rules and guidelines on adults. They can bully both students and adults.”
The definitions in the district’s rules are based on state law.
Board member Breanne Dedrickson asked about specifics of the district’s definition of bullying.
“I was always told it was intentional, repeated and there was an imbalance of power,” she said. “Because as an assistant principal, I’d have kids come in and say, ‘He was bullying me.’ It was a one-time incident; it wasn’t true bullying. So, I wondered if ‘repeated’ could be added to the definition.”
She also asked what it means to be “prompt” in reporting and reviewing any incidents and proposed adding a specific timeframe for administrators to act on complaints.
Superintendent Paul Sweat said the less specific language offers the district some legal protection.
“Our attorneys, they’re trying to keep us out of hot water,” he said. “They don’t want unreasonable restrictions or unreasonable expectations put on our administrators. I would just offer my suggestion to be cautious about that, because these policies haven’t ended up where they’re at in any arbitrary way.”
Campbell said the new part of the policy establishes an action plan, including notifying families of students who were bullied, interviewing anyone involved in the alleged bullying or hazing and creating a safety plan for people affected by bullying.
Board member Brad Ehlert said he’s adamant the district gets the policies right.
“When I talk to other parents, one of the things that seems to be most important is to understand: what is the process that says, how do we ensure that this does not happen to another kid?” he said. “How do we ensure, you know, is there a notification process? Is there a documentation process? Is there reporting that’s required? How do we ensure that there’s due process?”
He and Dedrickson also stressed they wanted to see specific consequences for policy violations listed in the rules.
“I saw that in our student bullying policy, in the current policy, it says if you violate these, anything up to termination could be consequences,” Dedrickson said. “But I didn’t – in this draft, there was nothing that even mentioned any kind of aftereffect, consequence, other than being reported to UPPAC.”
That’s the Utah Professional Practices Advisory Commission, the state committee responsible for teaching licenses and disciplinary action for educator misconduct.
District staff said it would be easy to add language about the consequences for policy violations.
Campbell said district staff will incorporate the board members’ feedback and bring a new draft to a future board meeting.
To read the draft policies for employee bullying and employee conduct, visit kpcw.org.
