Bill Keys, President of the MMSD School Board, chose to attack Ruth Robarts today in The Capital Times saying she was not the first board member to be concerned about the taser incident. Bill Keys’ letter seems to be unnecessarily spiteful and misses the point that was raised in The Capital Times’ editorial on February 15, 2005 . The editorial ended:
“Robarts is asking questions that need to be asked. And she is doing so in a thoughtful, forward-looking manner that invites the rest of the board and the community to join in a debate that needs to take place.”
There was no criticism of the School Board – just praise for raising questions publicly, which is what the School Board needs to do in a situation where children’s safety is an issue. The taser incident happened at Memorial High School on January 21, 2005. The incident was first reported in The Wisconsin State Journal on January 31, 2005, 10 days after the incident took place. In that article, Ruth Robarts commented that:
“School Board member Ruth Robarts said she was concerned that she didn’t hear about the incident until a reporter’s phone call.” I find this incredible that she would hear about an issue such as this nearly 10 days after it happened from the press.
In that same article “Member Bill Clingan said it’s appropriate that police authority trumps the school’s, and that the incident is a police issue. But as an individual, he doesn’t like to hear that a youth was subdued with a Taser.”
What’s missing – board governance. Neither Bill Keys, as president of the School Board, nor Bill Clingan, as vice president of the school board, did not appear to notify their colleagues about the incident in a timely manner; because, as it turns out, it’s not clear from public documents when they learned of the incident. How can that be? I would expect the first question Bill Keys might ask Superintendent Rainwater is: Why wasn’t the Board notified of this incident (at least before board members were contacted by the press) and what steps are you taking?
However, after learning about the incident, our School Board officers did not put the incident on a school board special session agenda so that they could 1) hear a public update about the incident from the Superintendent and what he was doing (such as, hiring an outside attorney to undertake an investigation), 2) provide the community with information about the incident that could be presented publicly and 3) have a public board discussion about next steps and what, if any, additional direction from the board to the Superintendent was needed. As an alternative, either school board officer could have written a letter to the paper about what the school board was doing to address the issue, complementing the questions raised by Ruth Robarts and letting the community know that this issue was of great concern to the board and that other board members were equally concerned as Ms. Robarts and were asking similar questions.
Instead, the public heard nothing from the school board president or vice president about an issue of importance to them (student safety) and what the school board would be doing. Rather than taking the opportunity to keep us updated, Mr. Keys decided more than one month after the taser incident to attack his colleague rather than thanking her for what she said, letting the public know what other board members were doing, and updating the public about what steps would be taken.
2 thoughts on “Board Governance Lacking – No Timely Information on Taser Incident From Board President to Public: Chooses to Attack Robarts”
Comments are closed.
This is an excellent piece. Our kids’ safety at school is at stake and Bill Keys arrogantly plays politics. In so doing, he cuts an elected board member out of the decisionmaking process. I only hope the newspapers pick up on this, in fact, hope that the author submits this piece for publication.
I’d also like to see an analysis of the costs and the justification for hiring outside counsel including whether they are truly independent of other interests in the district, for the period of time since Art Rainwater has been superintendent.
Sorry for the length. This is the MMSD BOARD policy. Not section on “Arrest By Police Officers.” This policy was revised, presumably with board approval, in August 2004.
POLICY INVESTIGATION, INTERROGATION, ARREST AND SEARCH 4400
Pupils
School officials shall cooperate with appropriate law enforcement agencies regarding the investigation, interrogation, arrest and search of students on school property or in the school building according to established procedure.
PROCEDURE INVESTIGATION, INTERROGATION, ARREST AND SEARCH 4400
Pupils
Investigation in Schools
1. By Police, on request of School Authorities:
1. A PRINCIPAL may exercise her/his discretion in determining whether to request assistance of police in investigating a crime, or the allegation of a crime, committed in her/his school building and/or on school grounds during school hours. If assistance is so requested, it shall be directed to the Police Department of the municipality in which the school building and/or grounds are located.
2. If the PRINCIPAL requests assistance, a police officer may conduct an investigation within the school building and/or on school grounds and interview students as possible witnesses in school during the school day. The PRINCIPAL or her/his representative shall be present during the interview unless the student requests that they not be there. A non-uniformed police officer shall be used if possible.
3. If the investigation focuses on a particular student as a suspect of a crime, the PRINCIPAL and the police officer will follow the general guidelines herein set forth with respect to Interrogation of Suspects in Schools by police on request of School Authorities, Search, and Arrest.
2. By Police, without request of School Authorities:
1. Police officers will make every effort to interview students outside of school hours and outside of the building and/or school grounds in those cases in which assistance by School Authorities has not been requested. This requirement does not apply to circumstances in which there is an imminent threat to the health or safety of persons or property, including imminent threats to the health, safety or property of MMSD students, staff members or visitors who are at school. If there is not an imminent threat as described above, the police may interview a student if an adult student consents to the interview or the parent(s) or legal guardian of a minor student has given the police permission to do so or in cases of child abuse or neglect in which the parent or legal guardian or other member of the student’s household is suspected of abusing or neglecting the child.
2. If the police deem it absolutely necessary to interview students at school and/or on school grounds, the Police Department shall first contact the PRINCIPAL or her/his representative regarding the planned visit and inform the PRINCIPAL (1) of the reason(s) why the police believe that it is necessary to interview the student(s) at school because of the imminent threat to the health or safety of persons or property, including the imminent threat to the health, safety or property of MMSD students, staff members or visitors who are at school, (2) that an adult student consents to the interview, (3) that the police have been given permission by the minor student’s parent(s) or legal guardian to interview the student(s) at school or (4) that there is a child abuse or neglect investigation in which the student’s parent(s), legal guardian or member of the student’s household is suspected of abusing or neglecting the child. The police officer shall not commence her/his investigation until the approval of the PRINCIPAL has been obtained. If the PRINCIPAL is unavailable, such permission may be secured from either the APPROPRIATE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT or from the SUPERINTENDENT’S OFFICE. The Police Department may appeal to the SUPERINTENDENT if it is deemed that approval was unreasonably withheld.
3. Before the investigation is commenced, if criminal prosecution against a student is contemplated, the PRINCIPAL or his/her designee shall attempt to notify the student’s parents or legal guardian and the PRINCIPAL or his/her designee or the police officer shall advise the student of the nature of the crime of which she or he is suspected, that s/he has a right to remain silent, that anything she or he says may be used against her/him in juvenile or criminal court, that s/he has the right to have an attorney present or a court-appointed attorney if her/his parents cannot afford it, and that the child or parent may stop the interrogation at any time. The school officials or parents cannot waive these rights on behalf of the student and it is the school official’s responsibility to insure that the student fully understands all of her/his rights.
Interrogation of Suspects in Schools:
1. By Police, on request of School Authorities:
1. If a PRINCIPAL has requested assistance by a Police Department to investigate a crime involving her/his school building and/or school grounds, or students, the police shall have permission to interrogate a student suspect in school and/or on school grounds during school hours. Unless advised otherwise by an adult student, the PRINCIPAL or the police shall first attempt to notify the parents or legal guardian of the student of the intended interrogation and shall inform the parents or legal guardian of the nature of the crime of which the student is suspected, that the student has a right to remain silent, that anything the student says may be used against her/him in juvenile or criminal court, that the student has the right to have an attorney present or a court-appointed attorney if her/his parents cannot afford it, and that the student or parent may stop the interrogation at any time. The PRINCIPAL or a Staff member of the student’s choice shall be present unless the student requests otherwise.
2. Before the interrogation is commenced, the police officer shall advise the student of the nature of the crime of which she or he is suspected, that s/he has a right to remain silent, that anything she or he says may be used against her/him in juvenile or criminal court, that s/he has the right to have an attorney present or a court-appointed attorney if her/his parents cannot afford it, and that the student or parent may stop the interrogation at any time. The school officials or parents cannot waive these rights on behalf of the student and it is the school official’s responsibility to insure that the student fully understands all of her/his rights.
3. If criminal prosecution is contemplated by the police, except as provided below, interrogation shall not commence unless a parent or legal guardian of the student is present. This does not apply if either an adult student consents to the interrogation without his/her parent or legal guardian being present or the parent or guardian of a minor student waives their presence at the interrogation. In situations in which the legal guardian or parents cannot be reached, or are unwilling to attend, it is the PRINCIPAL’s decision whether to proceed or not.
4. In certain situations, the use of a female police officer may be desirable in the interrogation of female students. A female staff member of the student’s choice may be there unless the student decides otherwise.
2. By Police, without request of School Authorities:
1. Police officers will make every effort to interrogate students outside of school hours and outside the school building and/or school grounds in those cases in which assistance has not been requested by school authorities. This requirement does not apply to circumstances in which there is an imminent threat to the health or safety of persons or property, including an imminent threat to the health, safety or property of MMSD students, staff members or visitors who are at school. If there is not an imminent threat as described in the previous sentence, the police may interrogate an adult student if he/she consents to the interrogation or if a minor student’s parent(s) or legal guardian has given the police permission to do so.
2. If the police deem it necessary to interrogate students at school and/or on school grounds, the police shall first contact the PRINCIPAL regarding the planned interrogation, inform the PRINCIPAL (1) of the reason(s) why the police believe that it is necessary to interrogate the student(s) at school because of the imminent threat to the health or safety of persons or property, including an imminent threat to the health, safety or property of MMSD students, staff members or visitors who are at school or (2) that an adult student consents to the interrogation, (3) that the police have been given permission by a minor student’s parent(s) or legal guardian to interrogate the student(s) at school. The police officer shall not commence her/his interrogation until the approval of the PRINCIPAL has been obtained. If the PRINCIPAL gives his/her approval, the PRINCIPAL or his/her designee shall attempt to contact the parents or legal guardian of the student. Under circumstances in which the PRINCIPAL is not available to provide such approval, the approval may be obtained from her/his school representative. If the police believe approval is unreasonably withheld, an appeal may be made to the APPROPRIATE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT and then to the SUPERINTENDENT.
3. Before the interrogation occurs, if criminal prosecution against a student is contemplated, the PRINCIPAL or his/her designee shall attempt to notify the student’s parents or legal guardian and the principal or his/her designee or the police officer shall advise the student of the nature of the crime of which she or he is suspected, that s/he has a right to remain silent, that anything she or he says may be used against her/him in juvenile or criminal court, that s/he has the right to have an attorney present or a court-appointed attorney if her/his parents cannot afford it, and that the child or parent may stop the interrogation at any time. The school officials or parents cannot waive these rights on behalf of the student and it is the school official’s responsibility to insure that the student fully understands all of her/his rights.
3. By School Administrators:
1. If upon interrogation relating to school matters, the PRINCIPAL has reason to believe that a crime has been committed and desires police involvement, s/he shall notify the police who will complete the investigation with all constitutional safeguards attached.
Arrest by Police Officers:
1. No police officer shall arrest or take into custody a student in the school building and/or on school grounds during school hours unless upon lawful request by the PRINCIPAL, or unless the officer has “Probable Cause” to arrest for a felony or misdemeanor, or has an arrest warrant or juvenile commitment order, which the issuing authority or juvenile court directs be served at school.
2. In cases where the student is to be taken into custody, the police officer shall first contact the PRINCIPAL and advise her/him of such fact. The student shall first be summoned to the office by the PRINCIPAL unless this could compromise the safety of the student, other students, staff or visitors to the school. If possible, a non-uniformed police officer shall make the arrest.
3. In emergency situations where the commission of a serious felony or misdemeanor has been witnessed by a police officer or if the police officer is in pursuit of a student for such crime, the police shall have the legal right to apprehend such student. However, before removing such juvenile student from the school building and/or school grounds, the police officer shall inform the PRINCIPAL or her/his representative of such apprehension.
4. The PRINCIPAL shall record the name of the police officer, the time of the arrest, the name of the issuing authority of any arrest warrant, the nature of the crime for which apprehension is made, and the place of custody or detention. The parents or legal guardians of the student should be notified immediately thereof by the PRINCIPAL. It is of course also incumbent upon the police to notify parents immediately after an arrest of a student is made.
Search of School Building or on School Property:
1. By Police, on request of School Authorities:
1. If a PRINCIPAL has information that s/he believes to be true, i.e., that evidence of a crime, stolen goods, drugs, weapons, or other items of an illegal or prohibited nature, is located on a student’s person, in a student’s locker, desk, or student’s or non-student’s automobile, the PRINCIPAL shall request police assistance.
2. Strip searches shall not be conducted by School District employees.
3. Strip searches shall be conducted by police and off school grounds unless the police determine that such search should be conducted on school premises.
2. By Police, without request of School Authorities:
1. Police officers may not search students’ lockers or desks or automobiles unless they have a search warrant or as otherwise provided by law, and may not search a student’s person in the school building and/or on school grounds unless the student is under arrest or as otherwise provided by law.
3. By School Administrators:
1. The school administration maintains control over lockers and desks loaned to students. The PRINCIPAL may search a locker or desk if s/he has reasonable suspicion to believe that missing school materials or items that would endanger the health or safety of the school population may be present or that other material or items are present which would constitute a violation of school rules, Board Policy or the law.
2. Whenever practicable, a student shall be present when her/his locker and/or desk is being searched.
8/23/04