The Clinton County Board of Education held its final regular meeting a few days early late last Thursday afternoon, December 14 with the anticipation that several citizens would be in attendance to discuss an ongoing policy issue–pertaining to bullying and a student’s right to defend themselves.

That basically turned out to be the situation, and although not a large gathering was on hand, several parents and citizens did attend the 4:30 p.m. meeting, which had a light agenda, but lasted about an hour with a lot of discussion on the aforementioned issue.

It should be noted that since dealing with juveniles of school age, no actual details pertaining to any particular situation, due to confidentiality, has been publicly disclosed.

In anticipation of several people being on hand, under the “public comment” item of business on the limited agenda, it was stated by board chairperson Paula Key that “public comments are limited to three (3) minutes. Please state the facts of your concern. Comments that result in personal attacks against individuals, programs, or schools are not acceptable and will not be tolerated during meetings.”

The issue was originally brought up last month when Albany Police Officer and also SRO (School Resource Officer) Ricky Marcum addressed the board about considering looking at their policy in regards to determining who was the aggressor in a physical altercation and a students right to defend themselves.

Officer Marcum was the first to address the issue last week, noting there should be equal punishment for people involved in altercations.

Board member Kevin Marcum said he was raised as a child not to start a fight, but to defend himself if someone else did.

One parent also questioned what the situation would be if a child were “ambushed” by another student.

Board Chairperson Paula Key explained to those on hand that every year guidelines were made at the first, or start of, the school year, with the help of legal counsel and also noted it would take time to look at changes that may need to be made in policies, adding “you can’t just change (policy) in one month.”

Superintendent Charlotte Nasief explained school districts also went by guidelines recommended by the Kentucky School Boards Association and that each school has its own level of procedures and is the primary entity that handles disciplinary matters on a daily basis.

Nasief said the board does not tell principals how to govern their schools, but basically sets policies. She further noted that she as superintendent, she did have the duty to oversee principals.

Angela Sloan, principal at the Clinton County Middle School, said each student and parents received a copy of the Code of Pupil Conduct at the start of each school year and individual procedures are addressed by the school on each incident. She also noted that school officials watched videos (of incidents when available).

Assistant Principal Josh Moons also injected progression sheets were kept up with and the school allows students who are physically threatened to “use the minimum amount of force” necessary to defend themselves short of escalating the event. He inferred that sometimes the person who originally gets hit first may wind up becoming the bigger aggressor in a situation.

At one point during the discussion, board attorney Angie Capps warned the audience they were not legally allowed to speak of specific incidents in a public forum (in relation to students) due to confidentiality, and no student names or specific incidents were made public.

Greg Brown posed a two-part question at the meeting, hypothetically asking that if in a job setting a fellow employee hit you twice, but the boss had a no tolerance policy toward fighting, would it be fair to punish both employees or should a person’s (or in this case student’s) past history be taken into consideration when considering punishment?

Board member Marcum again addressed that answer saying in many work places, right or wrong, companies do have a no tolerance policy and usually punish both employees regardless of who starts an altercation if both are fighting.

Attorney Capps again stated that in an open forum, the board does not take disciplinary actions, and other ways to deal with the issue sometimes is to first take the situation to principals or school administrators.

Stesha Flowers, principal at the Clinton County Area Technology Center, also noted that the ATC had a no tolerance policy for fighting and any student caught fighting, regardless of who began the altercation, is subject to suspension, sometimes for the remainder of a school year.

Another local resident, Larry Brown, questioned the board about “protocol” when someone gets injured in an altercation.

He told the board that a student was assaulted and instead of being taken to the school nurse, the student was taken to the bathroom and had to use toilet paper to stop the bleeding. He said there needed to be some type of protocol at schools where people know what to do in these type instances.

Another parent asked, “What can we do to work on policy to help children who are defending themselves…or if they are afraid to take up for themselves in fear they will be the one to get in trouble.”

The parent also said, “If you cannot combat a bully, he is going to bully you every day.

Superintendent Nasief said fortunately, the local school district had not gotten to the point that some districts have, where actual charges are filed by both students involved in a physical altercation.

Another parent said his five-year old was being bullied at the Early Childhood Center, where his wife was also an employee, and asked if staff had any kind of training on the subject. He also stated his wife had not come forward in fear of retaliation.

Superintendent Nasief made it clear there would be no type of retaliation in such an instance and said that principals do have training for employees.

“Parents should talk to the principals, then me…we want the issues fixed,” she said.

CCMS officials, including an emotional principal Sloan, indicated she and the teachers loved all of the students at the school and advised that officials needed to be made aware of situations, either by students or parents, saying if they could find out before a situation escalated, it may help solve some of the situations.

Marcum noted late in the comment period there was already a constitution that assures rights and things are already in place that should assure a student’s right of self-defense.

Near the conclusion of the comment and answer period, board member Gary Norris said there should be a district-wide (written) policy put in place to allow the defense (of a student) and it should be upheld.

Board attorney Capps, although not totally disagreeing, did warn that such a policy would have to be specific and written in a way that it could be carried out fairly.

No official action was taken on the issue last week, but chairperson Key did tell all those on hand their comments and suggestions would be taken under advisement and consideration.

Despite the nature of the issue and the number of people present to speak, the entire meeting and question and answer session was conducted in a civil manner with no harsh words or allegations being made on anyone’s part.