Coraggio Consulting
Loudoun County School Board, Human Resources and Talent Development (HRTD) Committee Meeting, Thursday, January 26, 2023

Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023
Place: Loudoun County Public Schools / School Board meeting (see BoardDocs / LCPS-TV)
Length: 55m (video)
Official meeting video (Vimeo / LCPS-TV): https://player.vimeo.com/video/793388502?rel=0
BoardDocs (School Board): https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/loudoun/Board.nsf/Public

Machine transcript (speech-to-text) produced by Coraggio Consulting. Not an official county record. Names and numbers may be misspelled; check the video at the timestamp before quoting.
Speech-to-text: whisper.cpp, model large-v3-turbo. Produced 2026-10-22. Timestamps are [HH:MM:SS] into the meeting video.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[00:00:07] - Hey, good afternoon. I hope you can hear me. We are calling to order this afternoon's meeting for the HRTD committee on this Thursday, January 26th. We'll call the meeting to order and I will just ask for your grace as I stumble through this.

[00:00:31] I don't have some of the procedural language down at this point. So we have a full agenda this evening with nine policies up for action to review and talk through.

[00:00:49] And we do have the first agenda item, however, is the public comment. So I will pause and ask my colleague if I've missed anything super important. Do I need a motion to convene?

[00:01:06] We're just calling to order. okay great so we will go ahead with item 2.01 which is public comment we have one public comment speaker today Sandy Sullivan if you would like to share your thoughts with us we I'm not going to put a minute or timeline on this and just please go ahead and share your thoughts thank you yes good afternoon Sandy Sullivan my president allowing Education Association and I want to speak to you

[00:01:44] about building access if you were at the school board meeting last tuesday and you were listening to public comment a bus driver was very clear what happened when lea was at the at the um in service kelly was there all set up out of the way we have always been at in services and orientations just so you have time to speak to our members speak to not yet members share items with them and by about 7:30 someone from transportation came by and was very polite with us but wanted to know if we were invited there

[00:02:22] and who invited us there and you can't stay here because Scott Davies said that LEA wasn't going to be there and we explained that we have been at all of those events since long before when I was president before bring goodies bring information and talk to people and then we scoot out of the way when it's time for their meetings. So we had to do the walk of shame with all of our items and leave, and all of our bus drivers who were members who had our email that we had email addresses of, they knew we were coming because we wanted them to know that they'd have an opportunity to talk to us. So we got an

[00:02:59] email of, where were you? I was going to see you. So we sent a follow-up email out to let them know it was exactly what happened, and we were there to meet with you, and we were not allowed. We were denied. This comes on the heels of we have now been asked or told we cannot be in buildings during contract hours. That is one way. It's been a past practice where we are able to be in a building. We contact the principal or the building rep and they work with the principal for a space and timing for us. What has happened right before winter break is we're not able to schedule those appointments

[00:03:36] either. We've been told we either have to fill out a building use form. A building use form we use every month for the sample this year at Harper Park where we have our monthly rep meetings and that's we stay there we're in that spot we've got that taken care of. Whenever we've done building visits like to get in a building and sit down in the lounge in the mailboxes wherever we stand out the way we have those conversations the biggest moving we do in buildings is like in a middle school or high school and we get in a um like house a where everyone happens to be eating lunch so

[00:04:15] we spend time there and then we move to b where there's going to be the english teachers or whatever and now we've been told that is not allowed we have been told that it is time we have been told that we can be in buildings before work hours and after work hours and that is basically it and that leaves very little way for us to interface with our members and not yet members and vice versa and we have worked very collaboratively over the years with HR when we hear problems that people are not willing to make a call or have a conversation with we hear things when we

[00:04:53] find out it's not just one problem one place we are there we meet we share we see what problems we can solve suggestions we can make all of that goodwill seems to have ended or has changed again i was really concerned when we were not allowed to be in buildings during the work day but now to be told we had to leave an event we have always done while dr smith is in the pr is in the process of looking through what's going on so i believe if he's looking through what's going on that shouldn't change in terms of okay we're not going in

[00:05:28] buildings but this was a new level of something else we had always done i need to know our members need to know why is there a change and what can be done we are not here to disrupt classes we are here to meet with members not yet members share information something needs to change thank you that concludes public comment

[00:05:58] and we will move on to the the review of the minutes so we have minutes from the COMMITTEE MEETING WHICH WAS FROM NOVEMBER 10TH I'M GOING TO ASK A QUESTION OF MY COLLEAGUE AGAIN IF YOU MAKE A MOTION CAN I SECOND OKAY SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 10TH I MOVE TO ADOPT THE MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 10TH MEETING AND I'LL SECOND THAT SO

[00:06:33] THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY WITH OH SORRY GO AHEAD OH SESS THERE'S ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADOPTING the minutes please raise your hand and say aye aye and now that passes unanimously with all those present in favor with mr morse absent okay we'll move on to the action items now the

[00:07:08] first item up for action is policy 7016 related to employment complaints um is there um there's a is there a motion to accept the revisions to policy 7016 employee complaints and move to the school board on february 14th uh well so i was going to ask for a discussion

[00:07:46] okay okay i'll i'll i do have discussion items but i'll i move once you make a motion again Again, apologies, folks. And there are so many things here.

[00:08:02] Okay, so I move to accept the revisions to policy 7016 employee complaints and move to the school board. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? No. Well, I'll just say I wasn't here at the November 10th meeting, so this would be my first time to review this with staff.

[00:08:23] But I might make a suggestion if we can have Ms. Boland go over some of the changes and point out why the changes were made. I would guess most of it's around the state code, but it's just more. Absolutely.

[00:08:41] So, 7016 language was added to this policy to update the correct name of policy 7014, Environments Free from Harassment, Discrimination, and Abuse. The process is also clarified to outline the steps to resolve a complaint, clearly stating that the employee should attempt to resolve the complaint at the lowest administrative level, The levels of supervision were added in increasing order of clarity.

[00:09:11] The superintendent was also listed as the final step for complaints rather than the school board as complaints under 7016 are often operational in nature. The language was added that if the complaint is against the superintendent, the complaint would be referred to the chair of the school board.

[00:09:31] Employees would have grievance procedures under policy 7018 or 7024 that do include the school board in the process for review. Such grievances would include complaints or disputes relating to employment or interpretation of personnel policies, rules, regulations.

[00:09:53] And I think that sums it up. Okay, thank you. I actually had a number of questions. so in reviewing this i think in general it it would be possible for this to have more straightforward language and clear about what type of complaints this covers reading this i actually went and then read all three of the other cited policies to try to understand what this did cover so i and i'll start by saying um i think my recommendations are to send this back for some

[00:10:31] revisions I'm interested you know if this is the practice in general of referring to other policies and I know that there are many things that are related but it would be helpful I think from an employee standpoint to be able to pull this up and understand exactly what falls under this you just mentioned that this that these are often operational in nature complaints and so spelling out the types of complaints would be helpful for this policy the The other question I have is that what is the recourse if by the end of the chain of command employees are still not satisfied?

[00:11:09] And then what makes a decision final and what are the appeal procedures? You just mentioned that grievances are available through policy 7018, but the start of this policy indicates that this relates to complaints not covered by a number of policies, including 7018.

[00:11:28] So if appeals or grievances fall under 7018, that needs to be stated so that it's clear what the process is. I think the other important thing here is that while you can't necessarily ensure confidentiality, especially if the complaint is, you know, against a supervisor, there should be language in here and it may exist in another policy.

[00:11:57] So at a minimum, it should reference another policy to make sure that we're addressing the fact that we are actively seeking to prevent retaliation in cases where complaints are about the supervisor or higher level administration.

[00:12:15] So I'll pause there to see if there's any feedback from staff. And then I had, again, assuming some other edits are made, I did have a suggested edit starting on line seven. So I think a lot of that is great in nature.

[00:12:33] The one caution or concern I may have, and I'll ask Sharon Bean or Alex Smith to chime into because they are heavily involved in this policy, is this is almost, and I hate to refer to it this way, a blanket policy for complaints that are outside of these other policies.

[00:13:00] And so I think we can provide some examples, but it would be difficult to be all-inclusive because this is a policy that is supposed to cover anything that an employee may have concerns about outside of those three policies.

[00:13:22] And perhaps it's possible to include a summary, kind of brief, high-level summary of what is covered in those policies. Again, having to go look up three other policies and decide if this is my recourse or something as an employee just seems to be onerous.

[00:13:44] Any other comments before I give you my suggested language updates? I don't have anything. I'm Alex Smith, one of the supervisors in HR, and we did get a chance to look at your questions ahead of time.

[00:14:03] So I think Lisa's covered kind of our general thoughts. I think one thing we could add is, because we don't say in there, it's, you know, that these complaints are generally more operational or management concerns. So, for example, you have a concern about the way your principal has some kind of guideline that they're using in the building.

[00:14:23] It's not rising to the level of a complaint of discrimination or harassment. Sometimes employees don't want to go through the formal grievance process, but they still want to be heard in some way. So we could add some language that refers to not covered under policy 7014, 7018, or 24 and are generally more operational or management concerns.

[00:14:43] We could add that caveat in the opening paragraph to maybe kind of give a little bit more broad context to what's going on. So I don't know if that would help clarify. It'd be hard to also clarify all the specific things that are covered under 7014 and 7018, particularly 7018 has a wide range of things that are grievable so I think that's what our goal was in referring back to those policies so employees could read and interpret and they can always call and we get calls all the time from employees trying to help understand like where does my complaint fall and so we can guide the employees if they're trying to figure out where what type

[00:15:20] of complaint to file. Just my perception again thinking about this from the employee standpoint and if I look up employee complaint it's just confusing and having to go read some lengthy policies to figure out what it isn't to see what this is it seems like a lot of work to put on them when really we just want to give them that appropriate avenue for their voice to be heard about whatever their complaint is and maybe the process is similar regardless of the complaint and so they should start with their supervisor but I if there's a way again just in and again

[00:16:00] understanding some of the other policies are fairly lengthy to have some kind of summary of what this is intended and even maybe including a couple of examples to say not limited to but for example might might be another approach and then related to the grievance procedure so is it is it intended that that if an employee is dissatisfied after following the chain of command as far as they go with the response, is that when they follow a grievance procedure?

[00:16:36] It just seems like to get through potentially eight layers, you know, like when does it go from the employee just continuing to follow up the chain versus now it's an official appeal or grievance and they're following a separate process?

[00:16:54] That's unclear with this addition as well. Okay, so I think it comes down to, I think it's kind of making that decision, at least in the beginning of which policy you want to file your complaint under. I hear what you're saying of the confusion over that.

[00:17:11] Someone, I guess, could conceivably go through this process, and if this process happens quickly enough, could say, I'm not happy with this process, I'm going to now file a grievance. The thing with a grievance is there's very prescribed timelines on when you have to file the grievance by. So I think what we end up doing, we kind of talk employees through what the different branches of the policy look like and explain the timelines associated with a grievance.

[00:17:37] So I think it's more of, I don't know that they could file a grievance at the end of this, but I think if they're using the word grievance and they're coming to us saying I want to file a grievance, we're first talking to them and explaining to them what the grievance policy talks about.

[00:17:55] So they can analyze, okay, this is what my process would be if I made a complaint under the procedure for adjusting grievances. And then we would also explain to them you have other avenues if you don't feel comfortable going through that process. There are other avenues by which you can also file a complaint, most generally referring them to 70-16.

[00:18:14] And then, of course, if they're referring to some kind of harassment or discrimination, then directing them to 70-14. I mean, we can look at language to see if it clarifies. Well, keep in mind, too, that this is a very general overview of employee complaints.

[00:18:29] The process behind all of this wouldn't necessarily be captured in policy. And like Alex explained, nine times out of ten, actually maybe ten out of ten, the employee is contacting HRTD to talk through which policy do I need to file under.

[00:18:51] I think it might be difficult and almost more confusing to try to explain that process in a policy because each individual's concerns have extenuating circumstances.

[00:19:09] They're specific to that individual. Could you add language that reflects that an employee can contact HR for guidance on the appropriate process considering the nature of their complaint? Absolutely.

[00:19:24] Okay. Because I think that was one of the other things that came up from a number of people who commented that HR is a partner in this, right? And then that is, in actuality, what often employees will call HR and say, what do I do in this case? I'm just thinking, again, if I'm just taking this really literally and I have a complaint and I go to my supervisor and then I go to the principal and then I go to the, you know, assistant director, it's like a lot of steps.

[00:19:49] So I think that I'd like to see that clarified a bit more. The last piece, unless there's something else, and then, okay. The last piece is I did have a suggested edit, and this is, you know, if this is not in line with procedure or how this is approached, this is, but starting in line, on line seven, where it says, if the immediate supervisor, I would replace the rest of the paragraph to say,

[00:20:26] If the immediate supervisor is unable to address the employee's complaint, they will attempt to obtain assistance from either their next line supervisor or HR.

[00:20:44] If the immediate supervisor is still unable to address and resolve the employee's complaint or the complaint is about the supervisor, the matter should be escalated to the next highest level of supervision administration. can be escalated as described below until the matter is either resolved or the response is deemed final, but then I don't know what final means.

[00:21:06] But again, just a different way of wording. I think that the wording around endeavor, I think, is a word I'm a little uncomfortable with because they really, you know, they should be addressing rather than endeavoring to address.

[00:21:26] and then it's not just about whether or not they can obtain information. It's really more about addressing the issue, and that could be information. It could be, you know, an adjustment to a process, or there could be any number of things.

[00:21:46] And we do have your language, so we can make that adjustment. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, so I would like to have this go back for revisions. is there do I have to make a motion for that or is that you want it to come back as action yeah I'd like to make a substitute motion to send that back for further revisions and have it come back again next month go ahead going back to what was saying about examples of things are there regulations that

[00:22:24] accompany this policy that you could fit that kind of description into there to help or again this is more just this is a catch-all it's really a catch-all it It doesn't have a specific regulation. It would be very difficult to put a regulation together with a process that would accurately depict every complaint that possibly could come in.

[00:22:52] This is the wide range of if you have a concern, this is the way you can report it, and it will get addressed. Okay. And then just for my purposes of sort of having an example of this, would a complaint that would fall into this be something like, I need my computer fixed, and you go to the connect supervisor, or is this more like, I'm just not, this job is not working for me, like where, you mentioned something about complaining about a supervisor, but I think that would fall into some of the other policies that I'm.

[00:23:21] It really depends on the type of complaint.

[00:23:42] It could be a matter of meetings scheduled after hours or it really could be anything like my my planning time being abused when faculty meetings are scheduled. yeah I mean it could be anything from actually like a conflict with your co-worker and you're asked you're going to your supervisor complain about my co-worker and I'm going to my supervisor to resolve it I don't think my supervisor adequately resolved it so I'm going to escalate until I feel like it's been adequately evolved it resolved it could also be a complaint about the way your supervisor or your building administrator is handling certain situations student discipline or

[00:24:22] something in your building um it yeah so it could really be any number of things that are more like more operational or management that really what we kind of think of it is more within the span of control of a supervisor to try to resolve like these are your workplace decisions these are workplace issues that are happening and as a supervisory you're in the best position to try

[00:24:45] to resolve these issues. Okay. Item number 4. 02, policy 7302, appointment and assignment. I move that the HRTD committee accept revisions to policy 7302, appointment and assignment, and move this

[00:25:23] to the full board for review on February 14th. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Do you have discussion items because i do okay um so for this one i think one of the questions that i have about this is the um the rationale for having school board members sit in on interviews for principals when

[00:25:56] they are a non-voting participant on the search committee um i i think in general the hiring and staffing of staff within the division falls under the purview of the superintendent and I'm I did get some feedback I had asked a question of dr. Smith about this and he indicated that that hadn't always been the case that school board members were invited to participate I when I first read it was curious about why would you have a participant who couldn't ask questions or weigh

[00:26:34] in on um weigh in on the on the assessment of the candidate and so for that reason um I will so I'm interested in the rationale for the inclusion of a school board member who isn't really fully participating so I will leave that open to both my colleague who has more experience here as well as staff if there's any thoughts on that and and I'm happy to hand it over to Chris Bennett executive director what I will say is this was added at the direction of the

[00:27:14] board at the time outside of that I'm sure he has more historical context so that's what I would say several boards ago in 2013 if you look on the dates at the bottom this was added at the direction of the school board because they wanted to have a place at principal interviews it was primarily focused on principal interviews there was a lot of discussion at the time about the legality of a board member even being on a panel for hiring somebody because your role is comes later so what was sort of

[00:27:49] mitigated was this observational capacity because if you're there as a voting member you're putting yourself at a potential conflict later when that name comes forth yes the superintendent hires But as a board, you approve a board list of candidates that are put forth for jobs.

[00:28:07] So sort of the mitigating factor of the board wanting to have a role, but also not putting the board member in a conflict, it was observation. And so facilitating these interviews, which Mr. Phillips does, I've done for many years, we address that.

[00:28:26] So if a board member is there, we address that their hair is an observer and their role comes in later as the full school board. So it eliminates what might be perceived as awkward because we address it. But that's really where it came from, was an interest of the board to be there 10 years ago.

[00:28:47] And it's just kind of continued. And in recent years, how often do board members actually participate in that observational capacity? don't have hard numbers anecdotally less often than they do often there are conflicts because we set interviews based on the schedule of many folks so more often than not we have not had a board member present yeah I've been invited a couple times I'm gonna make it I don't I know some board members have

[00:29:25] said that they've been on interviews so it certainly happens but I mean it also So there's not a lot of principal turnover to, so it's probably only a couple positions every year. So it hasn't been too many opportunities, I would say. Okay. I'd like to make a substitute motion to strike the participation of school board members in an operational capacity.

[00:29:47] Is there a second for that substitute motion? Use my amendment. Yeah, I'll second.

[00:30:09] Yeah, I think that might make sense to bring this to the full board, just again to see how much it's been used. And I would say that would be a better spot to make something like that. um i think it i think it's something that school board members uh enjoy that privilege of being able to see the process um from what i can tell the people who have done it appreciated it so i think again you're at the end of the day that person will come before the school board so it might make sense to allow for some kind of observation throughout that process so i'm okay

[00:30:46] i'd rather keep it at this moment especially um just a sort of an extra option for the school board so i will not support that amendment okay thank you um the other question i had was um while there's a lot of detail about the number of people participating in um the principal searches and the types of folks there is not similar details related to cabinet positions and i had

[00:31:20] asked, again, Dr. Smith, because I had talked to him about my questions, that I understand that depending upon the cabinet position, the participation may be different just based on the subject area and the portfolio for that cabinet member, but I think that it would just be helpful to spell that section out a little bit.

[00:31:48] think in light of this I'd like to recommend some revision to the participants in the cabinet search and then to your point perhaps bring that back to the full board for action and discussion and we can raise that question with the full board related to school board member participation in principal searches okay so all those in favor of having a revision to the cabinet search participants and then bringing this forward to the full board

[00:32:26] for action and discussion on February 14th on the cabinet search I would just like I don't yeah so what's the question yeah so when you say I think we're gonna need some clarification so when you say you because unlike with principals we can't spell out specific positions that should sit on the panel

[00:32:57] right because it does vary based on the type of position um so are you looking for just the number or must include these individuals but not limited to i guess so hearing that if it varies largely i'm comfortable with leaving it as is then i mean the the other option i could see is

[00:33:31] who has to be on it right um clearly the superintendent if if chief of staff but then if we're hiring for the chief of staff that might be difficult as well so i'm trying to find a way to be more detailed but i'm not sure it makes sense if i may ask a clarifying question my colleague so you're you i think what you want is just more school board involvement in the this cabinet no the comment is more so related to that you have I mean here's some and I

[00:34:07] don't know how you run them so it could be that there are there participants for example within the unit that this person would be managing so you have the opportunity for staff involvement you don't typically do that okay my experience is that that does happen at least in the context for where I've worked. I mean it has happened but it's not guaranteed. Okay I'm there so is is there all

[00:34:46] those in favor of bringing this forward as is to the school board for action on February 14th where we can discuss the school board members for principals say aye. I'm sorry for action or information. For okay for information yeah thank you. I'll be better next month I promise. What's

[00:35:16] that we do i didn't get school board school okay okay we will now move forward to item 4.03 which is policy 7304 licensed employee transfers and involuntary reassignment um i i would actually

[00:35:50] like to make can i make a motion to not move it forward i'd like to make a motion to send this back for revisions and also propose that revisions to the related regulation come forward at the same time. There is a related regulation which is due for review, and I believe that there should be more specificity around the reasons and process for involuntary assignments in the policy, and that could be, you know, if that's supposed to be in the regulation, they need to be consistent.

[00:36:31] if um because right now there are some inconsistencies between the revised policy as it's presented and the regulation as it stands there were also many specific and i believe valid suggestions on the feedback form which i believe could be considered to help inform this next revision i also one of which i agree with which is keeping the word involuntary in the title of the the regulation technically there are employee transfers which they can request and then there are reassignments which are not requested and are

[00:37:11] involuntary and so I think leaving the word involuntary would be appropriate is there a second to send it back okay and all those in favor of sending it back for revision or are there questions so could you speak more into the decision to remove the involuntary reassignments or I mean yes it's a yeah you could talk more about why that was removed from the title because it seems like the it's in

[00:37:48] other parts of the policy right that would that was at the recommendation of council to remove that word since a reassignment is involuntary so it's kind of redundant yeah I would just add my opinion is I think it's helpful to be explicit about what it is and it is involuntary and so we can maybe get council guidance on how strong that guidance is but any other questions in terms of I again I didn't take the I'm not taking the action to rewrite it but I think that it needs to be

[00:38:28] reviewed in conjunction with the regulation and come back as an information item come back as an information item or an action item it can come back as an action item but and then yes you can you can bring it back as an action item. I'd like to see the, again, if in reviewing this with council there aren't strong objections, I'd like to see the word involuntary brought back,

[00:39:01] and there needs to be more specificity in the policy or the regulation about the circumstances in which staff are reassigned. So the regulation typically goes to the cabinet, and they handle the wordings of the regulation so that's all ready to go to the cabinet if you wanted to bring brought forward here that would be a different process in addition that we're coming up against

[00:39:35] the timelines for these things to start happening and pushing it back further would possibly delay that and and impact what we're going to do in terms of our shuffling or potentially shuffling staff around over the course of the next three to four months in addition the deadline is that the big thing or the biggest substantive change to the regulation is the is the deadline moving from june 30th to june 15th to kind of match the virginia code for teachers resigning and moving

[00:40:10] around so if that's your wish we can bring that the regulation too but i do ask that if it does move forward as an action item that could potentially be fast tracked for the full board so it because it could impact uh what our practices will be over the course of the next two to three months with involuntary reassignments thank you for the clarification that the regulation review is already in flight so i think from my perspective i'm not comfortable agreeing to a policy without also seeing what the revisions to the regulation are but if both of those would be

[00:40:47] ready for review by the full board on february 14th i don't know what the timeline is for the cabinet level review of regulations but these two go hand in hand and should be reviewed together i also have a question about the june 15th date that now that you mentioned it so is there a regulatory reason why it's june 15th some of the comments were concerns about the timing of that with the end of the school year and not having necessarily for teachers to have bandwidth for participating in that process while they're trying to wrap up the academic year with

[00:41:25] their students the June 15th date is in Virginia code and we wanted it to match that date in in especially for principals because sometimes as you said they go what the teacher goes away for the summer or the principal goes away for the summer and during that two to three weeks could find become challenging for staffing. So we wanted staffing to be pretty much in place before everyone left for that summer holiday. They know what team they're on. Sometimes a teacher could leave and another teacher might be asked to, oh, I need you to shift over to this particular

[00:42:02] role last minute. So that we wanted to have much as much stability and consistency for staffing by June 15th. Can you provide that Virginia Code cross-reference in the policy when the next comes back.

[00:42:24] And then about the regulations, it seems to be hit or miss, depending on whether or not they're provided or not. Sometimes policies come along with the regulations. Sometimes the regulation has to come out with the policy. So I think it's well within the purview of this committee to ask for the regulations to come with this policy.

[00:42:43] If there is a deadline for staff, though, we could send it to the full board with asking that the regulations come along with it so that it's available. And then, again, there will be two meetings for us to discuss this and go over it. So if something has to go through, even if no changes get made, I think, you know, we still have mechanisms in order to massage this and correct it until it actually gets put in the study.

[00:43:07] So it would come through as an information item on the 14th in action at the 4th Tuesday. So along the same lines of what Mr. Beatty said, if we can move it forward as an information item, We could check with legal counsel and return involuntary reassignments, recognizing that the desire is to have more specificity in the regulation and bring both for review on the 14th.

[00:43:45] yes yes that i so is um i guess a substitute motion from what was originally made that we ask staff to bring this policy along with the associated regulation to the full board meeting on the 14th as an information item second all those in favor say aye aye so that substitute motion passes unanimously with all those present agreeing and mr morse absent for the vote we

[00:44:22] may or may not get through all of these things because we have 10 minutes and there is another meeting at five o'clock so item 4.04 policy 7530 duty to report child or student abuse and neglect I move that the HRTD committee accept the revisions to policy 7530 duty to report child or student abuse and neglect and move to the full school board on February 14th 2023 is there a

[00:44:55] second second any discussion okay as usual I just have a lot of questions so in the first paragraph it indicates that the employee who becomes aware of abuse or neglect must neglect must report it but then in section a.1.a it references that the principal makes the report so I believe that that

[00:45:22] needs to be revised for clarity unless I'm missing something okay I'm sorry can you tell me again so in the first section it talks about there are it says that the employee in the first paragraphs line 4 to 5 any employee who

[00:46:01] in their professional capacity knows or has reasonable suspicion that is student or child is subject to abused or exploitation of 18 or older shall report such knowledge or reasonable suspicion immediately in accordance with policy and then number one the initial report should be an oral report directly to child protective services i take that to mean it's the employee who's making that report but then in the next section under reporting requirements it says that number one any teacher or school employee who has reason to suspect abuse neglect

[00:46:39] or exploitation, she'll immediately report it to, A, the principal, who then makes the report to CPS, APS as applicable. So it's just not clear who's making the report to CPS. Is it the employee or is it the principal?

[00:46:57] Okay. And I think we can clarify, but I think it could be either or. As mandated reporters, it could be either or. I think the intention is for the principal to make the report, but that's not always the case.

[00:47:12] So we can clarify. Okay. And it could say it could be either or, but it just needs to be consistent between the two sections. The other thing, Section A for reporting requirements, doesn't seem to address the reporting in the CPS portal, which is mentioned in the introductory section number two.

[00:47:36] So I believe that that needs to be added into the reporting requirements as well.

[00:48:04] And then section A.3, sort of in line with my first comments, it seems to indicate that the employee themselves would report suspected abuse of an individual who is 18 or over rather than the principal.

[00:48:25] And again, I would just ask for if it's the employee or the principal, what the procedures are, because it seems to be a different process than for minors. And I didn't know if that was intended or not. You're talking about in A3.

[00:48:48] In A3, it says reports of reasonable suspicion that a student who is 18 or older is subject of abuse or neglect. She'll be reported immediately to CPS and also APS, regardless of the student's intellectual ability.

[00:49:09] In addition, the principal or designee must also be notified of the report. So in this case, it's on the employee, not the principal. And so I think we could probably just remove everything after in addition because...

[00:49:26] Well, I think the in addition is that they need to tell the principal about it. Not that it doesn't say the principal makes the report. It says they also need to notify the principal. So in this case, the employee is notifying CPS, APS, and the principal.

[00:49:54] I don't have... We can look it. I don't have the verbiage. I was going to try to tweak it on the fly, but I don't think I can do that. But you can see what I'm talking about there. Okay. I'm Sharon Bean.

[00:50:13] I'm the other workplace relations supervisor, and in my role, I deal quite a bit with Child Protective Services. Just for a little bit of historical context, previously I was a high school counselor, and I can very clearly remember when it was changed that by CPS, we were asked to have the principals notify make that report to child protective services not the individuals because for many years as the counselor I was making the reports directly so that requested come from CBS so I think there's been several changes in leadership in their organization so I think that we can very easily have a conversation with them to at least be able to come back and provide you some

[00:50:53] additional information on how that process for that piece of it the report making but to Lisa's point all employees are mandated reporters so we can very easily clarify that language that if the principal is not or if it's after hours that the employee should absolutely go ahead and make that report as well and in regards to the portal the portal is Loudoun County Public Schools way of I guess documenting the CPS reports for lack of a better so CPS has requested that all reports are made verbally and so then the portal is a second submission it's not in lieu of but again clarifying that in this policy will be

[00:51:31] very easy okay great thank you so much and then the final question I have about this is on line 125 so it says that the principal or department supervisor is ultimately responsible for any member of staff who fails to timely report suspected or declared child abuse or neglect but then in paragraph e starting on line 160, it delineates the consequences for an individual employee who fails to report suspected abuse.

[00:52:08] So, I just have a question about accountability and why, when ultimately they are all mandated reporters, the expectation is that employees are making the reports, why it then becomes, I mean, yes, you are accountable for what's happening in your building, but I think that's separate from saying that the principal is responsible for mandatory reporting that didn't happen when there are already consequences for the employee? I'm just trying to find out what

[00:52:41] the rationale for the addition of that sentence was starting on line 125. So if I say this incorrectly, you can let me know. But the way I understand it is the principal or department supervisor is responsible for following through with the consequences and is in overseeing that employee that failed to do so. Not for the failure necessarily, isn't responsible for the failure

[00:53:17] to report, but is responsible for the oversight or management of the employee that failed to report. Is that right, Sharon? So I would ask that that language be used rather than stating that they're ultimately responsible for any member of staff so the language that you just used to describe they're responsible for you know that oversight role i think would be more appropriate in that

[00:53:45] section so i would like to make us substitute motion that this policy with the revisions that we've discussed is brought forward to the full board as an information item at the next scheduled meeting is there a second all those in favor of the substitute motion raise your hand and say aye

[00:54:18] aye that passes unanimously with all board members present and mr morse absent um so we are at time and Mr. Beatty and I have another meeting so we did our best this was I think a lot of things to get through in one so unfortunately we'll have to defer and come back to these I would say unless

[00:54:54] there are a few that I have no comments on we could get we could try to run those quickly we do need to go yeah okay so we need to adjourn is there a motion to adjourn I'm just adjourning okay thank you and again my apologies thank you for your coaching on the side here and we'll see you next month

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coraggio Consulting · aguyonx.com