Background checks and fingerprinting for members
Voting members of the policy committee were Republicans Pat Bradford and Melissa Mason, and Democrat Dr. Tim Merrick.
Bradford said she had been trying to bring changes to the ethics policy forward over the past three months. She wanted to ensure that current and future members would undergo both a background check and fingerprinting.
She also wanted the district to emulate sections of the ethics policy from the Rockingham County School Board, an all Republican board.
Bradford started by reading off a litany of items from the Rockingham County policy that are mostly a part of other NHCS policies and procedures. For example, she reiterated that members cannot disclose confidential information and that members needed to treat vendors with respect, to which Merrick said, “[You are] rattling off this; it’s hard to follow along. I’m just trying to get the gist.”
NHCS Superintendent Dr. Christopher Barnes chimed into the conversation to say, “Policy does not mandate behavior. I think we need to remember that the policy manual is a shield, not a sword. [...] It’s supposed to guide behavior. So I think that just rephrases what you just said in a nicer way,” referring to Bradford. Mason started laughing.
Bradford responded, “And my way was pretty simple in that, if I tell little Johnny, don't leave the barn open because the cow's going to get out, and the cow keeps getting out, you don't take the rule away just because Johnny's not being obedient. You have to have the rules.”
During this discussion, board attorney Norwood Blanchard reminded the members that their behavior should be guided by what’s best for the school district: “They're taking an oath not to do what they told advocacy groups they would do, but to be loyal to the board.”
Mason initiated a motion to bring forth the changes to the ethics policy at the August meeting, including some of the language from Rockingham County, and the addition of requiring background checks and fingerprinting. Both Mason and Bradford were in support; Merrick dissented.
Charges likely coming for public records billing
The main change that the board is considering, brought forth by the superintendent, is that the district will start charging for public records that take over two hours to fulfill. Previously, the threshold for a fee was four hours. The set charge per hour of work is yet to be determined, but Barnes said he’s working on it.
He said the change in policy was prompted by a person who put in a large number of requests.
“They put in 17 records requests all at once to everywhere in the state. So numerous other districts also got this request, and it's requests for things like every purchase order, every agreement, every liability, everything, and they broke them into small little pieces so that no individual request went over four hours,” Barnes said.
In the current portal, Woo Park is showing up on several of these requests. Park is the head of data operations at The Data Branch, where they gather government purchasing records for a database the company runs. It’s an effort to gain transparency about purchasing prices.
Barnes added, “I don't want to look like this is an impediment to getting public records requests fixed, but I also know that there is a limit of what I can expect these people [NHCS staff] to do.”
Barnes added that the district’s current policy allows applying a charge over four hours of ‘work’ in processing records in response to requests.
However, there are important nuances and specifics in the state's public records law, of which an overly broad interpretation of 'work' could run afoul.
Blanchard told the public that the special service charge for public records can only be issued when, “the request is such as to require extensive use of information technology resources, or extensive clerical or supervisory assistance by personnel, or if producing the record and the medium requested results in greater use of IT resources.” That guidance will likely be reflected in the upcoming policy,
Duke University’s First Amendment Law Clinic has issued guidelines and support for journalists and the public on the special service charge.
Essentially, they advise that agencies cannot charge for “an electronic document delivered via email or a thumb drive; a request to read or examine public records; staff time and compensation associated with reviewing and preparing a response to a public records request; and personnel time required to review material for confidentiality or redacting and removing.”
They also advise that they can’t charge for “hiring external support or resources” to process the requests.
Barnes said during the policy discussion, “I’m of the opinion that if someone is really looking for specific information, it shouldn't take all that long. And if it does, and they're looking for that much information, they should be able to pay for it.”
However, it appears that state law around the special service charge is limited to specific conditions, mainly the time spent on significant IT support to procure the records.
For now, Barnes addressed some of the IT costs the district already bears, most of which should not be paid by the requester. He identified different categories that might be associated with different costs, like pulling emails, asking for financial records, or legal review and redaction of documents. Notably, government agencies are not allowed to charge requesters for the time spent redacting records.
The superintendent added that if the board votes to change the policy, he hopes to produce a guide that shows the average cost of processing the requests — and some tips on how to get them in a more timely manner.
The members voted unanimously for Barnes to work on this change to the public records policy — and that the district could charge after two hours of burdensome IT work to produce the documents and/or written communications.
Students have to be present, show engagement for academic contracts
The board is also looking into tweaking the policies on student academic contracts. Essentially, it will be harder for students to be granted one when they have chronic ‘unexcused absences’. Students who have illnesses, which would be excused, would still be eligible for a contract.
Academic contracts allow students who are struggling to still pass their grade if they adhere to certain conditions. The contracts are usually preceded by ‘intervention plans,’ which include more consistent parent and teacher communication and potentially other ways for the student to show mastery differently than what the course normally requires.
If a student ignores or has not made a ‘good faith effort’ on the intervention plan, then they would not be eligible for an academic contract towards the end of the course.
Assistant Superintendent Dr. Robin Hamilton gave a scenario of a failing high school student to illustrate the proposed changes to the policy.
“I'm just not coming to school. For whatever reason, my mother doesn't know that. Now, it is three weeks before the end of the semester, and I might not pass. So, now my teacher is going to, at the last minute, try to put in a contract that I'm not going to be able to fulfill. Nor is the teacher going to be able to take that time and attention from maybe the other children who have been making a good faith effort in high school,” she said.
When the student follows the intervention plan, they might be eligible for certain grades to help them pass.
Barnes said that the educator will also make an effort to support the student throughout the course, but they cannot always “shield [students] from the consequences of [their] actions.”
Merrick clarified, “So as long as they're showing up with the intervention plan, they're showing up with their contract; they're not going to end up at zero, and that will keep them on a path of recovery.”
In August, the board will vote to approve the updated policies around academic contracts. The committee moved it forward unanimously with the stipulation that students who are chronically absent without an excuse would not be eligible.
Barnes reiterated that students who ignore both intervention plans and academic contracts would then receive the grade they earn, even if it means they fail.
One policy update that failed to move forward was Libertarian David Perry’s suggestion that board policy surrounding employee political activities could cover a future legislative advocacy trip to Raleigh for NHCS staff. Mason and Bradford voted against moving it forward; Merrick voted in favor of taking the policy back to Perry so that he could rework it.
