Garrick A Moritz, Editor
Though GHS Homecoming coronation was scheduled at the athletic complex that night, the Garretson School board wasn’t able to enjoy it, as they were in session and working.
All board members were present save Ruth Sarar, who joined the meeting via video call. After they approved the consent agenda, including financials and minutes approvals and surplus property items, they talked about the first milestone of the meeting- the 2020-21 Budget that they must pass at of before Oct. 1st.
Having received the last bit of taxation data from the Minnehaha County Auditor, they were ready to pass the budget. One worry this budgetary season was whether or not the state legislature and the Governor would host a special session and erode away the 2% increase of school funding statewide that they had previously passed. Under state law the legislature must give SD schools a cost of living increase of either 3 % or factor in the rate of inflation, whichever number is smaller. This law, however, has been ignored in the past by the state government.
Supt. Guy Johnson said that this year, the special session that will happen will likely focus on how to spend the federal dollars assigned to South Dakota as part of the COVID-19 relief package, rather than trying to cut school funding.
The Garretson School District is still utilizing the tax opt-out that was passed a few years ago, but this is the second year in a row that they’ve not dipped as deeply into that well as they might, utilizing only $350,000 of the potential $500,000 that they could ask for.
In other good budgetary news, they have fully paid off their bond redemption for the athletic complex. Supt. Johnson noted that local taxpayers will have a noticeable reduction in their property taxes.
Board President Nordstrom said that the school had had many priorities with getting the school’s budget in line. Mainly, the school and the community around it needed to improve services in childcare and increase housing, and though sometimes it feels like that sort of work goes slowly, the community has made discernible progress on all these fronts.
The board passed the budget unanimously.
Next, Supt. Johnson asked the board for a resolution to declare the staff of the Garretson School as essential workers. This would include all teachers, support, janitorial, kitchen and all staff. This would allow workers to keep working their jobs, even if a close family member or a person in their household had tested positive for COVID-19.
Supt. Johnson explained that one teacher had a spouse who had tested positive. This teacher was also the primary caregiver for their spouse, and they stayed home and taught their classes remotely. This, however, also required a substitute in the building to supervise the students. The substitute teacher pool is quite shallow at present, with only a few individuals to draw upon when needed.
The situation is much worse in the Sioux Falls School District. Supt. Johnson said he was worried about school classroom sustainability. With the precautions the district was already taking, he did not see spread to other staff and students to be as likely, though he admitted it would be a calculated risk.
“Calculated risk” is a phrase that could easily be applied to any and all school activities until a vaccine is widely available and distributed to all staff and students.
The motion was made, but nearly died for a lack of second. Board President Nordstrom exercised his rarely-used privilege to do so, and asked, both as per protocol and seriously for more discussion. The issue went around the table. Many board members had reservations about this measure, but in the end, they agreed to pass it. In the discussion, it was noted that all of the students, from preschool & kindergarten to high school, have been taking the mask mandate seriously, and the teachers and staff have been proud of the students and their perseverance under difficult circumstances.
There were no policy items for second reading and passage, but there was a first reading on personnel record and the release/transfer of that confidential information to make it conform with new standards in state law as recommended by the Associated School Boards.
The policy committee would be reviewing the equal educational opportunity, compulsory attendance and alternative instruction policies next.
An item added to the agenda at the beginning of the meeting was now discussed. Supt. Johnson started with calling the board’s attention to a letter he’d received that day from the Associated School Boards of South Dakota. See the attached letter:
TO: School Board Presidents, Vice Presidents and School District Superintendents FR: ASBSD and SD COSA Board of Directors DATE: September 14, 2020
There has been quite a buzz after DOE stated during the weekly Zoom meeting on Thursday, September 10, that only the school boards could decide whether or not to exclude from school attendance students who had been in close contact with a person who tested positive for COVID-19.
The relevant statute is SDCL 13-28-7.3.
SDCL 13-28-7.3. Exclusion of student for risk of infectious disease or communicable parasite-Readmission. A school board or school superintendent may, with the concurrence of the county health officer, exclude from school attendance a student who is determined to be a risk or nuisance to the health of other students or school employees due to the presence of infectious disease or communicable parasite. A student may be readmitted when the school board or school superintendent with the concurrence of the county health officer, determines that the state of communicability or infectiousness no longer exists.
First, SDCL 13-28-7.3 expressly states the school board or the school superintendent may, with the concurrence of the county health officer, exclude a student from school. Therefore, the school superintendent, just like the school board, has the statutory authority to exclude a student with the concurrence of the county health officer.
Second, the statute is clear that the concurrence of the county health officer is required in order for a school board or superintendent to exclude a student for an infectious disease reason such as COVID-19. Counties may establish (but are not required to establish) a county health department, and full-time health departments are under the immediate direction of a health officer. SDCL 34-3-1. Every public school district needs to contact the county auditor of the county in which the district is located (and if the district overlaps into two or more counties, then the county in which the majority of students reside, SDCL 13-5-14), and ask if the county has a county health officer. If the answer is yes, the school needs to contact the health officer and discuss the officer's desired protocol when the school seeks concurrence. In each case, a follow-up "thank-you" email (and "cc'ing" DOE and DOH) is recommended, not only to show appreciation for whatever was learned, but also to provide evidence of the school district's attempt to comply with SDCL 13-28-7.3.
If there is no county health department (which means there is no county health officer), ASBSD and the SD COSA Board of Directors recommend that schools use DOH's notice to the school that a student has had close-contact in absence of a county health officer's concurrence.1 If the DOH investigator is not willing to put in an email to the school the name of the student and the date the DOH recommendation was given to the parents, the DOH school contact person needs to document the date and time of the DOH phone call, the name of the student having been in close contact and resulting in the DOH recommendation to self-quarantine for 14 days, and the date the DOH recommendation to self-quarantine was given to the parents.
If the school has received written notice from DOH or written documentation of the DOH phone call that a specific student has been told to self-quarantine (even if it is more of a recommendation than a requirement), ASBSD and the COSA Board of Directors think the notice from DOE to a school that a student should be self-quarantined for 14 days would constitute concurrence by DOH for excluding the student from school.
1 (ASBSD was informed on Friday, September 11, 2020, that DOH will continue to do contact tracing.)
Admittedly, SDCL 13-28-7.3 requires concurrence from the County Health Officer. However, presumably the intent behind the concurrence being required is in order for a health professional to be involved in the decision exclude a student from attendance due to an infectious disease. DOH's Recommendations for Temporary Exclusion from a School Setting states in part "COVID-19: exclude based on current CDC and SD Department of Health guidance, see doh.sd.gov." https://doh.sd.gov/diseases/assets/SchoolExclusion.pdf.
ASBSD and the COSA Board of Directors think the written notice from DOH of a student being recommended to self-quarantine for 14 days due to close-contact would provide protection for a school district should the school district get challenged after excluding a student from attendance without concurrence from a county health officer. [see SDDOH- WHAT TO EXPECT IF YOU'VE HAD CLOSE CONTACT WITH A POSITIVE CASE ["Instruct 14 days of self-quarantine from date of close contact exposure"] https://doh.sd.ROv/documents/COVID19/COVID contact tracing.pdf
The question has also been asked "what is the liability exposure of a school board should it decide not to follow DOH recommendations and the school lets a student who had close-contact remain in school?" ASBSD and the COSA Board of Directors think that a Plaintiffs attorney would certainly make not following DOH and CDC recommendations an issue. A school board would definitely need able to present sufficient justification as to why DOH and CDC recommendations were not followed. Arguably, not being able to get from DOH the name of a student who had close contact and/or not being able to get a county health officer concurrence because there is no county health officer may provide a defense for the school. A related question is whether a school could utilize a "quarantine room" for those students who have been identified as having close-contact. The answer, of course, a school could do that, but in addition to that action being inconsistent with DOH and CDC recommendations for self-isolation, there could be issues of staffing/supervision and those students being in close-contact with similarly situated students (i.e., other students who also had been in dose-contact with a person who tested positive for COVID-19).
Third, ASBSD and the SD COSA Board of Directors think that while a school board policy is not required, school boards should consider adopting a motion/resolution as to how the school district will address the issue of students who had close contact (if it is not already addressed in the school's re-opening plan). There are essentially two possible motions: (1) to follow DOH guidance and recommendation related to Temporary Exclusion from a School Setting "COVID-19: exclude based on current CDC and SD Department of Health guidance, see doh.sd.gov ( https://doh.sd.gov/diseases/assets/SchoolExclusion.pdf), or (2) motion to do something different than the DOH guidance, setting forth with specificity, what the school district will do when a student has had close contact, and the reasoning/justification for not adopting the DOH recommendation. As the school board motion, if passed, becomes the rule for and within the school district, school superintendents and principals would have the responsibility of implementing and applying rule after the school is on notice that a student has been identified as having close-contact with a person who tested positive for COVID-19.
As with other matters, ASBSD and the SD COSA Board of Directors strongly recommends that school districts consult with their school attorney regarding SDCL 13-28-7.3.
Wade Pogany, ASBSD Executive Director Kelsey Parker, SD COSA President
cc: SD COSA Members
Supt. Johnson explained that this means that the SD State Department of Health was now saying that they had no legal authority to exclude a student from a school setting if they tested positive for COVID-19. This is a complete 180-degree shift from their stated policy and practice.
This caused both anger and frustration all around the conference table, with board member Rachel Hanisch, a practicing lawyer, banging the table in frustration and outrage. More or less, state government was passing the buck in favor of local school districts taking the responsibility.
“This is frustrating and a complete turnaround from what their stated position has been since the pandemic began,” said Johnson. “My only conclusion is that they’ve been told to align their position to the stated position of the Governor. It looks politically motivated, but who knows, perhaps they had a legal team look into this and discovered that they don’t actually have the authority to quarantine someone from school. But, we are not without recourse. School boards do have this authority, so I would ask and recommend to the board that you make a resolution that allows us to follow part 1 of guidance outlined in said letter, for the temporary exclusion for a school setting for reasons of COVID-19, based on current CDC and SD DOH guidelines.”
This was passed unanimously.
Supt. Johnson shared with the board that he and the other administrators and school staff have been the boots on the ground for the SD DOH contact tracing, often working with local health providers and Department of Health officials to do the actual leg work of contact tracing. He said, bluntly, that promises were made by state government officials, and not kept. Planning was good, but execution was poor.
Supt. Johnson continued with his administrative report. He began with reports on the distance learning programs, which he was pleased to report was going as well as could be expected. The program is small, but it’s been very helpful and essential to some families. If a student does get sick, they can still participate in school. Unexpected side benefits of the early dismissal on Wednesdays is that some struggling students have been able to get the extra attention that they need and have improved academically. For students who need to take a class period or two off for simple things like a dental or eye appointment, there is an archive of lectures the teachers can provide them so that they can catch up after the fact. Johnson said that distance learning might just be something that is continued into the future for the district because of the sheer utility.
Supt. Johnson’s enrollment report contained good news, with 478 currently enrolled. With some ebb and flow of students and families out of the district, a few enrollments were lost, but others instead chose to enroll into the district. (The Gazette actually spoke with a family who deliberately enrolled into our district because the school board instituted a mask mandate to protect students and staff.)
The district has now received COVID-19 relief funds. Supt. Johnson commented that it would have been better to have received the funding sooner (even as early as June, when the district needed to make purchases), but that they were grateful for the reimbursement.
He updated the board on the status of the HVAC & roofing projects. The HVAC only had minor items left, chiefly controls and calibration. The only portion of the roofing project left to finish was an access ladder to be installed connecting one part of the roof to another. He was certain that would be completed very soon.
President Nordstrom said how happy and grateful he was that the contractors were able to get an early start on all said projects. He said that many operations all over the region have been brought to a screeching halt because of delays in supply chains, and he was thankful that the school’s projects were completed with a minimum of delays.
The board then went into executive session to discuss a personnel matter. This being well after 7 p.m. by now, it was clear that any board member who wished to attend the GHS Homecoming Coronation would miss it, but business must come before pleasure.
