The meeting’s focal point was the comprehensive review of Policy GCB, which addresses the investigation of employee misconduct allegations. The committee examined public comments and proposed updates to the policy, underscoring the importance of timelines, conflict of interest disclosures, and ongoing training for the investigation unit. A director from the Department of Compliance and Investigations highlighted four main themes from public feedback: the necessity for regulations and administrative procedures, timelines for investigations, conflict of interest disclosures, and the investigation unit’s training. Proposed changes would require the superintendent to establish regulations for consistent policy implementation, with an annual review process.

The discussion included proposed language that mandates the establishment of timelines for investigations, balancing the need for thoroughness with the urgency to avoid interference with external agency investigations. The committee also discussed conflict of interest disclosures, suggesting that employees should report potential conflicts to a supervisor, the Chief of Human Resources, or the Board Ethics Officer. Additionally, the policy would address training and certification for the investigation unit to ensure a well-rounded expertise.

Concerns about retaliation were addressed with recommendations to incorporate language from Maryland’s whistleblower law, which protects employees from reprisals for reporting misconduct. Data security was another focus, with suggestions for a secure case tracking system to maintain confidentiality and legal compliance concerning employee and student information.

The committee also explored the coordination with external agencies, with proposals for additional language to ensure effective collaboration with law enforcement. This would include memoranda of understanding to clarify when external agency involvement is necessary.

A member raised questions about communication protocols with accused employees, seeking clarity on whether such protocols were contractual. It was proposed that cases leading to termination should be reviewed by the Office of General Counsel before final decisions are made.

During the meeting, the committee also discussed an agreement with the Office of General Counsel regarding the review of specific allegations. Although this practice existed, it had not been formalized into policy. A committee member stressed the need for transparency.

The conversation shifted to the appeal process, with concerns about whether a hearing officer is assigned in every appeal case. It was suggested that the policy language be modified to clarify that superintendent decisions may be appealed according to specific education article sections, meeting with agreement for further review.

Additionally, the rights of complainants were discussed, particularly when complaints are not adequately investigated. A member expressed concern about the lack of recourse for complainants in such situations, as confidentiality laws prevent them from receiving the investigative report. The committee agreed to review the policy language on this matter.

The meeting also introduced a draft policy on workforce excellence, emphasizing the interconnected roles of employees in supporting student success. The policy advocates for onboarding, compliance training, career advancement opportunities, and a framework for addressing underperformance. Employee feedback on training content was emphasized.

The committee reviewed regulations concerning reportable offenses by students, developed in response to Maryland law requiring annual reporting to the Maryland State Department. The regulation aims to prevent punitive removal of students based solely on arrests.