PDQ November 2020

In this issue: Protecting student privacy during remote learning • COVID-19 — where are we now? • Title IX update • Board meetings during the pandemic • U.S. Department of Labor changes rules administering temporary leave provisions • Executive session confidentiality • Auditor of state issues best practices for cash collection points bulletin • Update on OSBA policy services • Sample policies included with this issue

Protecting student privacy during remote learning

by Sara C. Clark, chief legal counsel

As of Oct. 15, nearly 40% of Ohio school districts were either fully remote or a mix of in-person and remote education. While remote learning provides districts with flexibility during this time of social distancing due to COVID-19, it also brings unique concerns about student privacy. In most cases, school board policies weren’t written with remote learning in mind. However, the federal government has released guidance about the implication of federal privacy laws, like the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), that can help districts apply their policies in a meaningful way during these unprecedented times.

FERPA provides parents and eligible students the right to provide consent to the disclosure of personally identifiable information (PII) from student education records unless a FERPA exception applies. FERPA applies to education records, such as written records or video recordings. As a result, a student’s mere participation in remote learning generally doesn’t implicate FERPA. FERPA defines “records” as “any information recorded in any way.” Typically, remote learning acts as a live instructional broadcast, and there is no underlying record created with a student’s participation.

Remote learning may make students visible to parents, siblings or others within their respective homes. FERPA doesn’t prohibit parents from observing their child’s classroom. In its Dec. 8, 2003, Letter to Mamas, the U.S. Department of Education stated that “FERPA does not specifically prohibit a parent or professional working with the parent from observing the parent’s child in the classroom.” In short, the fact that the observing parent will see other students in the classroom is not a violation of FERPA. The same is true in the context of remote learning. In March 2020 guidance, the department’s Student Privacy Policy Office advised that Letter to Mamas is also applicable to virtual classrooms. However, even if these observations do not raise concerns under FERPA, they may run afoul of existing policies in place in the district. Districts should review their policies on classroom visitors to determine their applicability or adaptability to remote learning settings. They may require parents to schedule observations with the student’s teacher in advance or may limit the number or length of such observations.

In situations where a district elects to record lessons, a different analysis is warranted. In these cases, because information is being recorded, a record is being created, and it’s necessary to evaluate whether the recording is an education record that is subject to FERPA.

Any image or video that is directly related to a student and kept by the educational agency is considered part of a student’s education record and is subject to FERPA. “Directly related” generally means that a student is or becomes the focus of a video or the content of the video includes PII in the student’s education record. A single image or recording can be directly related to multiple students at once.

It becomes important then to assess what is included in the content of the recording. For example, if a class recording only includes the instructor, it would not be subject to FERPA because the recording would not contain any information that is directly related to a student. On the other hand, if the recording involves student discussions, questions, presentations or other student activities, such student participation may be protected and its disclosure may be limited by FERPA.

The National Center for Learning Disabilities and the Future of Privacy Forum encourages districts to ask the following questions before recording a virtual class:

What is the purpose of recording a live lesson? Is it solely for educational purposes? Can another option be used to achieve the same goal (for example, teachers record themselves without students present)?
Who will the recording be shared with? Is it meant to be shared with others? Is that information shared with students who are being recorded and with students receiving the recording?
Where will the recording be stored? How will the recording be transferred to storage? Are the transfer and storage platforms secure enough for protected student data?

If the recordings directly relate to a student, school districts can remain FERPA compliant by obtaining the written consent of the students identified on the recording prior to disclosure. Districts should edit the recordings to omit the voice, likeness or other PII of any student who has not provided written consent.

Policy implications
OSBA’s regulation JO-R, Student Records, is modeled after the federal FERPA regulations and will govern a district’s responsibilities and obligations for safeguarding student records. Policy KK, Visitors to Schools, is OSBA’s model policy that regulates visitors to schools. OSBA is not recommending any policy updates to either policy at this time, but districts should review locally adopted policies and procedures to determine their applicability or adaptability to remote learning settings.

Return to top

COVID-19 — where are we now?

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

The August PDQ provided a reference chart outlining many of the current temporary provisions of law and their expiration dates. Districts should review the chart to determine which provisions have expired and continue to monitor guidance and updates provided by the Ohio Department of Education as you work through the 2020-21 school year. In addition, districts also should consider the following areas.

Federal guidance
The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights released a Sept. 28 Questions and Answers for K-12 Public Schools In the Current COVID-19 Environment. The document is a technical assistance document to help districts meet their obligations under federal civil rights laws. The document specifically states “the contents of this guidance do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.” While not regulatory, the issues raised in the document are important to review as you work through this academic year from the perspective of federal obligations and highlight several federal statutes and provisions that are binding.

Liability
Ohio House Bill (HB) 606 made temporary provisions related to qualified civil liability as it relates to COVID-19. The bill is effective Dec. 16 but states the provisions cover the period of March 9, 2020, through Sept. 30, 2021.

Schools are covered in Section 2 of the bill, which states, “No civil action for damages for injury, death or loss to person or property shall be brought against any person if the cause of action on which the civil action is based, in whole or in part, is that the injury, death, or loss to person or property is caused by the exposure to, or the transmission or contraction of, MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV or SARS-CoV-2, or any mutation thereof, unless it is established that the exposure to, or the transmission or contraction of, any of those viruses or mutations was by reckless conduct or intentional misconduct or willful or wanton misconduct on the part of the person against whom the action is brought.” Therefore, schools are granted this immunity.

HB 606 also outlines various definitions, including “reckless conduct.” Districts should work with their legal counsel when questions arise as to whether a case at hand falls under the provisions of HB 606.

Technology policies
Districts continue to work through using technology in various modes of learning. As you manage this, it is important to know what may already be covered in your acceptable use policies and what may need added or addressed in another fashion. The OSBA model policy for acceptable use and internet safety already had language stating: “For purposes of this policy, computers include district-owned desktop computers, laptops, tablets and other mobile computing devices,” and “these policies and regulations also apply to the use of district-owned devices or accessing of district intranet off district property.” This language helps to cover many situations you already may be managing in regard to whether district-owned devices are being used appropriately, even off site. Additionally, many districts had students and parents sign software- or platform-specific agreements and have separate forms and district-level procedures outlining more specific details on how to use district-owned devices provided under 1-to-1 programs. While these documents are helpful, some districts may find benefit to revisions to board-adopted acceptable use policies that staff and students annually sign to address additional considerations regarding various technology platforms.

Even after the COVID-19 pandemic, the increased use of technology will remain. As we reviewed our sample acceptable use and internet safety policy, we made some revisions to strengthen this policy as you work in various educational modes. As you review the updated recommendations, consider whether you want to adopt this updated version now or if you feel you adequately covered the necessary information in the ways addressed above. If you do evaluate your acceptable use policies and additional district-level procedures and forms and determine an updated acceptable use policy is appropriate and helpful at this time, consider the updated EDE, Computer/Online Services (Acceptable Use and Internet Safety), provided for download with this PDQ issue. While the changes are not required, they are beneficial for districts. Regulation EDE-R, Computer/Online Services (Acceptable Use and Internet Safety), also has been included for informational purposes.

As a reminder, if you change this policy and want to hold your students and staff to this standard, the updated policy should be provided to users for agreement. Districts also may find, based on their locally used sign off forms and notifications, that they can put people on notice of the new policy as the one being enforced for the school year. This could be done through a regular parent communication in the district. Alternatively, you may want to wait to review this policy until you formalize your documents for the start of next school year and reevaluate this policy in the spring. Revisions also have been made to the sample exhibit EDE-E, Computer Network Agreement Form, to clearly state that revisions may be made to policies throughout the school year.

Contact the author at (614) 540-4000 or khaycox@ohioschoolboards.org with any questions on how to best address this for your district.

Did you adopt that policy?
In light of the current circumstances, many districts may have delayed board meetings, presenting challenges in meeting required policy adoption deadlines. As a reminder, the following policies had statutory adoption dates that have passed. If your district has not yet adopted these policies, review the referenced PDQ issue for the applicable policies and articles:

Policy for graduation plans and identifying students at risk of dropping out — The deadline to adopt was extended to Sept. 30, 2020. The OSBA policy and article were released in the February 2020 PDQ issue.
Title IX sexual harassment regulations — New requirements took effect Aug. 14, 2020, with policies and procedures required to be in place on the effective date. The policy and article were released in the August 2020 PDQ issue.
Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) — Regardless of whether you will be implementing OTES 2.0 this year or delaying implementation until the 2021-22 school year, a policy meeting OTES 2.0 requirements should have been developed in consultation with teachers and adopted by Sept. 1, 2020. The policy and article were released in the May 2020 PDQ issue.

Return to top

Title IX update

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

The August 2020 PDQ issue provided information and policies for the new Title IX sexual harassment requirements that took effect Aug. 14, 2020. This is an area we are continuing to monitor and providing additional guidance as necessary. While no policy changes are needed, we wanted to draw your attention to some recent documents that may be helpful for implementing the requirements. The U.S Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) released a Sept. 4 FAQ document on the final rule. Districts should review this document for assistance in implementing the new regulations. The FAQ document answers questions that directly impact your implementation of the new regulations and provide, among other things, the following points of clarification:

The new Title IX rule does not apply to schools’ responses to sexual harassment that allegedly occurred prior to Aug. 14, 2020.
The Title IX rule does not preclude a district from using the same Title IX personnel and grievance process to review and investigate allegations of misconduct that fall outside the scope of Title IX.
Students who are participating or attempting to participate in a school’s program or activity have a right to file a formal complaint of sexual harassment. A complainant who has left school because of sexual harassment but expresses a desire to re-enroll if the district appropriately responds to the sexual harassment is “attempting to participate” in the district’s education program or activity.
Although the district itself is responsible for ensuring compliance with Title IX, it may delegate elements of the grievance process to an outside entity.
The Title IX rule does not adopt the Federal Rules of Evidence for hearings conducted under Title IX. The Title IX grievance process doesn’t prescribe rules governing how admissible, relevant evidence must be evaluated by the decision-maker. Recipients have discretion to adopt and apply rules in that regard so long as the rules apply equally to both parties and don’t otherwise conflict with the Title IX rules.
The parties have an equal opportunity to provide input about how evidence should be weighted by the decision-maker.
The Title IX rules do not preclude a district from using one decision-maker to reach the determination regarding responsibility and having another decision-maker determine appropriate remedies for a complainant or appropriate disciplinary sanctions for the respondent.

Districts are encouraged to review the FAQ document in its entirety for additional information about the final rule’s effective date; Title IX coordinator and other personnel issues; definition of sexual harassment; filing of a formal complaint; and conducting an investigation hearing.

OCR also has a blog, where it has recently posted entries regarding Title IX implementation.

If you have not yet adopted policies and procedures that comply with the new Title IX requirements, your district is not in compliance with the regulations. Action should be taken as soon as practical to get the appropriate policies in place. The OSBA sample policies ACAA, Sexual Harassment, and ACAA-R, Sexual Harassment Grievance Process, were released with the August PDQ issue.

Once the policies are adopted, it is important that you fulfill your policy and procedure notice requirements. The regulations require you to provide notice to applicants for admission and employment; students; parents or legal guardians of elementary and secondary school students; employees; and the union(s) with the name or title, office address, email address and telephone number of the Title IX coordinator and notice of the district grievance procedures and process, including how to report or file a complaint of sex discrimination, how to file a formal complaint of sexual harassment and how the district will respond. The district also is required to post the Title IX coordinator’s contact information and Title IX policies and procedures in a prominent location on the district website and in all handbooks made available by the district.

For districts using OSBA’s online policy hosting, provided through the BoardDocs platform, you can direct people to your locally adopted ACAA and ACAA-R using the share icon on the policy. This link stays constant even if your policy is revised at a later date, so consider using the hyperlink provided for that policy and regulation to assist you in fulfilling your notice obligations. Contact the author for assistance in this process as necessary.

Return to top

Board meetings during the pandemic

by Ralph H. Lusher III, staff attorney

Before COVID-19 and the ensuing pandemic, boards of education were prohibited from meeting virtually. Board members who were not physically in attendance were not allowed to vote or be considered in attendance, even if the board member attended the meeting electronically. In light of the pandemic and subsequent health orders and legislation, boards of education are, at least temporarily, permitted to use virtual meetings and livestream them to the public.

How we arrived here
On March 22, 2020, the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) issued its stay at home order, which stated, “(a)ll public and private gatherings of any number of people occurring outside a single household or living unit are prohibited, except for the limited purposes permitted by this Order.” Public bodies, such as boards of education, were not provided an exception, prompting the question of how public meetings were to be held.

In response, the legislature produced House Bill (HB) 197, which was signed by Gov. Mike DeWine on March 27, 2020. Section 12 of the bill allows members of a public body to hold and attend meetings by video conference, teleconference or other similar electronic technology under certain conditions for the duration of Executive Order 2020-01D but not beyond Dec. 1, 2020. Under HB 197, board of education members who attend meetings by means of teleconference, video conference or any other similar electronic technology, shall be considered present as if in person at the meeting or hearing; shall be permitted to vote; and shall be counted for purposes of determining whether a quorum is present at the meeting.

Once the stay at home order was lifted, it was replaced with a succession of orders that prohibited most gatherings of more than 10 people. There were a number of extensions, but on July 7, 2020, the prohibition was extended until DeWine’s Executive Order 2020-01D, declaring a state of emergency, is lifted, or the May 29, 2020, ODH order is rescinded or modified. As a result, the prohibition on gatherings of more than 10 people is still in effect, even for boards of education.

School is in session; what about board meetings?
School boards may feel pressured to have in-person board meetings, especially when many school buildings across the state have opened. However, as stated above, there is still a prohibition on in-person gatherings of more than 10 people. While subsequent ODH director’s orders have carved out exceptions and authorized larger gatherings at restaurants, weddings, volleyball games and other events, board meetings do not fall into any exception.

It is possible to have a board meeting with board members and key administrators present in person and socially distanced. However, the number of people in the room can’t exceed 10. Boards also may conduct hybrid meetings, where some board members, staff or citizens are participating in person and others electronically. In all cases, the board must comply with meeting notification requirements and ensure that the public can observe and hear the discussions and deliberations of all members of the public body, regardless of whether a member is participating in person or electronically.

The method of delivering the meeting to the public can include livestreaming by means of the internet; local radio; television; cable or public access channels; call-in information for a teleconference; or any other similar electronic technology. The challenge with putting the board members in a room and livestreaming is that the ODH director’s Order for Facial Coverings throughout the State of Ohio requires board members to wear a mask, which may muffle what they are saying.

Policy implications
The board’s ability to hold and attend meetings virtually is set to expire Dec. 1, 2020. OSBA continues to lobby for an extension of this language and will provide updates on those efforts as they become available. Absent changes to Ohio Revised Code language, rather than flexibility granted through temporary law and in light of the current provisions expiring Dec. 1, our OSBA sample policies remain as they did before the pandemic and reflect current permanent law requiring the in-person presence of a board member. Many districts took action to pass a resolution suspending or temporarily suspending portions of policies in conflict with temporary provisions granted to districts during the COVID-19 pandemic, and this should be referenced when reviewing potentially conflicting policy language.

In the meantime, if you have general questions about hosting board meetings during the pandemic, please contact the OSBA Division of Legal Services.

Return to top

U.S. Department of Labor changes rules administering temporary leave provisions

by Jennifer A. Hardin, deputy director of legal services

The May 2020 PDQ issue discussed the policy changes districts were required to make to comply with the emergency sick leave and Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) provisions in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). The provisions, in effect from April 1, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2020, are supported by rules issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in March. DOL amended the rules recently in ways that affect school districts and ESCs as employers.

FFCRA leave provisions in brief
The emergency paid sick leave and expanded FMLA provisions in FFCRA apply to both full- and part-time employees. The law requires school districts and ESCs to provide emergency paid sick leave to any employee who is unable to work or telework for one of six COVID-19-related reasons set forth in the law.

Full-time employees are eligible for up to 80 hours of emergency paid sick leave. Part-time employees are entitled to sick leave for the number of hours worked, on average, over a two-week period.

Depending on the reason an employee is taking emergency paid sick leave, he or she will be paid either his or her regular rate of pay or minimum wage, whichever is greater, or two-thirds of his or her regular rate of pay. These reasons and the applicable pay rate are summarized in this DOL poster.

The expanded FMLA provisions in FFCRA require each district and ESC to provide up to 12 workweeks of FMLA leave to any employee who has been employed with the district or ESC for at least 30 days. Expanded FMLA leave is available to employees who cannot work or telework due to a need to care for their child whose school or place of care has been closed, or regular child care provider is unavailable, due to a public health emergency with respect to COVID-19. FFCRA expanded the reasons why a person can take FMLA leave but did not expand the amount of available FMLA leave, which is still capped at 12 weeks each year.

The first 10 days of expanded FMLA leave are unpaid, although an employee can use accrued and unused paid leaves or FFCRA emergency paid sick leave concurrently with these two weeks of unpaid FFCRA-expanded FMLA leave. After that time, leave will be paid at two-thirds of an employee’s regular rate of pay for the number of hours he or she would otherwise be scheduled to work, not to exceed $200 a day ($10,000 in total).

Challenges to DOL rules
Shortly after FFCRA was passed, DOL promulgated rules to administer the law. The rules were subsequently challenged by the state of New York. In early August, a federal court decided that DOL had exceeded its authority in some of the challenged areas. Specifically, the court concluded that the DOL rules were improper on the intermittent use of FFCRA leave, work-availability exclusion and notice provisions.

DOL revised rules
In response to the challenges and the court’s decision, DOL issued revised rules on Sept. 11, 2020. However, while the rules were revised, they were not substantially changed. Instead, DOL’s revised rules reiterated the original limitations on intermittent use of the FFCRA leaves and the work availability exclusion.

DOL bases the intermittent leave regulation on the fact that the law neither permits nor prohibits intermittent use of the leaves. The revised rules allow intermittent use of either leave, but only with employer consent in most cases. The only exception is that employer approval is not required for employees who are parents and caregivers of children who attend schools using a hybrid learning schedule, with some days of in-person learning and some days of distance learning. Employees can use time off in full-day increments to stay home on full distance-learning days or partial-day increments to stay home on partial distance-learning days. The basis for this regulation is that each day or partial day of distance learning is a separate reason for FFCRA leave, which ends when students return to in-person learning.

The work availability exclusion also remains in the revised rules, and DOL has expanded its application to all qualifying reasons for leave. DOL explained that FFCRA leaves are available only to employees who are unable to work because of one of the reasons described in FFCRA. If there is no work available for the employee because of a temporary or permanent closure of the worksite, the FFCRA reasons for leave are not the only cause of the employee’s inability to work. However, DOL did caution employers not to “avoid granting FFCRA leave by purporting to lack work for an employee.” Employers can base unavailability of work on legitimate, nondiscriminatory and nonretaliatory business reasons only.

The other significant change in the rules involves the documentation required of employees. The rules now provide that when using emergency paid sick leave, an employee can be required to provide notice as soon as practicable after the first workday or partial workday for which the employee is taking leave. Districts should make sure their practices do not require advance or immediate notice for use of emergency paid sick leave. When using expanded FMLA leave, an employee can be required to provide notice as soon as practicable. If the employee can foresee the need to take expanded FMLA leave, he or she should provide notice before taking the leave. If the employee could not foresee the need to take expanded FMLA leave, he or she should provide notice as soon as practicable after taking the leave.

An updated FAQ document also has been provided by DOL.

Policy implications
Districts should have adopted the FFCRA policies and regulations released in the May PDQ issue. At present, the policies will remain in effect until FFCRA lapses on Dec. 31, 2020. If there are any changes that extend or alter the applications of the policies in any significant way, OSBA will update its policy clients. If FFCRA provisions are not extended, the board needs to take action to rescind the policies adopted upon expiration of FFCRA. When the board rescinds these policies, notify OSBA of this action so we can update your manual if you use our update or online policy service.

Return to top

Executive session confidentiality

by Jennifer A. Hardin, deputy director of legal services

The Ohio Ethics Commission issued Advisory Opinion No. 2002-02 earlier this year on confidentiality and executive sessions. The opinion discusses Ohio Revised Code 102.03(B), which prohibits any public official or employee from disclosing or using confidential information. The Division of Legal Services discussed the opinion in this post on the Legal Ledger blog.

Policy implications
Policy BDC, Executive Sessions, has been revised to better clarify the prohibition on disclosure of confidential information. When reviewing this policy, we also determined an update to item one was necessary to mirror the statutory provisions more closely.

Return to top

Auditor of state issues best practices for cash collection points bulletin

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

The Ohio Auditor of State (AOS) issued bulletin 2020-006 on Oct. 15, 2020, to school district athletic departments and Ohio fair board managers of agricultural societies with an “upon issuance” implementation date. The bulletin addresses the importance of good internal controls, policies and procedures regarding cash collection points in the district.

The bulletin includes references to Ohio Revised Code (RC) 9.38, which requires the deposit of money received by the district on the next business day following the day of receipt when the amount exceeds $1,000. If the amount received does not exceed $1,000, it must be deposited on the next business day following the day of receipt unless the board adopts a policy permitting a different time period, not to exceed three business days following the day of receipt if the person is able to safeguard the money until the money is deposited. If the district chooses to allow for up to three business days, the policy must include procedures to safeguard the funds until they are deposited. If a board policy is not established, RC 9.38 requires the district to follow the procedures outlined in state law; districts do not have the ability to use the “up to three business days” standard if the policy is not board approved.

The bulletin also refers to “the Government Finance Officers Association’s (GFOA) Best Practice Revenue Control Policy that recommends the establishment of a revenue control and management policy that is annually reviewed and customized for the applicable public office. The GFOA recommendations include considering internal controls over cash receipting such as segregation of duties, daily processing and timely deposit of receipts (ideally within 24 hours of receipt), and physical security procedures. Accordingly, local governments/entities have a responsibility to establish and implement policies that incorporate control procedures for over-the-counter cash collections.”

AOS Bulletin 2020-006 provides more detail on what districts should consider when establishing policies and procedures for safeguarding cash in schools. Districts should review the full bulletin as they work to determine compliance. The bulletin is specifically discussing cash management as it relates to athletic events, but the sample policy included with the bulletin as an example addresses all cash collection points, and districts can consider the safeguards in the bulletin when they are looking at all their cash collection points. The bulletin provides best practices for cash collections and deposits in the following areas: policies/procedures; training and bonding considerations; segregation of duties; point-of-sale cash collection-cash drawer; expenses/denomination exchanges; ticket sales cash collections; cash collections-reconciliation; cash collections-deposits; and some additional fiscal office procedures/considerations.

Policy implications
The bulletin provides the following best practice regarding policies and procedures: “All local governments/entities should establish policies related to cash collections and deposits, shall follow guidance from RC 9.38 and may seek guidance from a financial institution in establishing such policies. Policies for depositing cash must be approved by the governing board, and most importantly, should include provisions for (the) safeguarding of the cash until it can be deposited with the fiscal officer and/or financial institution or bank. In addition, the fiscal officer should maintain specific procedures governing those processes, and the policies and procedures should be observed by all those collecting and depositing cash on behalf of the local government/entity.”

While not included in your board policies, it is important to note that the bulletin also states that the treasurer’s office should ensure that the board adopts fee schedules for all events and that these board-approved ticket prices should be clearly documented. If your district does not currently have these fees approved by the board, you may consider implementing this practice. These fees do not need to appear in your board policy manual but should be documented and maintained in the treasurer’s office and used for reconciliations where appropriate.

In review of the guidance, we determined that additional policy language is beneficial to assist districts in compliance. We recommend you review the bulletin in conjunction with the sample policy recommendations included here to further understand the recommendations and to locally customize the policies as necessary. The AOS bulletin provides a sample policy for use by school districts. If districts want to use the sample policy provided by AOS in lieu of the recommendations provided by OSBA in this PDQ issue, please reach out to one of your OSBA policy consultants for assistance in appropriately adding this to your locally adopted policies. The OSBA recommendations released in this issue take into consideration the sample policy recommendations provided in the bulletin.

Policy DM, Deposit of Public Funds (Cash Collection Points), has been updated, including a title change, to add additional details on how cash will be managed, taking into consideration the bulletin's best practices. While these additions provide some additional parameters at the board policy level, districts also should confirm they have clear internal controls in written district-level procedures to outline how specifically the policy is carried out, and these procedures may vary by district. The bulletin gives several example scenarios and best practice for managing different scenarios that should be reviewed as you work through the fiscal office governing procedures.

The bulletin states all individuals handling cash, including volunteers, athletic directors and secretaries, should be appropriately bonded and/or insured as provided by the policies of the local government/entity. Policy DH, Bonded Employees and Officers, has been revised and is included with this PDQ issue. Most districts already have this policy and the appropriate coverage in place as practice. When reviewing the policy, we determined the changes included to the policy with this PDQ issue reflect the fact that many districts have stopped using position bonds for individuals other than the treasurer who handle funds, and the revisions provide for more flexibility in coverage.

The bulletin also addresses how the use of petty cash accounts intersects with the best practices outlined. While no changes are necessary to policy DJB, Petty Cash Accounts, it is included for informational purposes in this PDQ issue.

Return to top

Update on OSBA policy services

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

Many of our subscribers already are experiencing our new online policy platform hosted through BoardDocs. As you become familiar with your new site, we are now able to begin training you on how to interact with us directly through the online BoardDocs platform.

As we phase in the new platform, all policy update notifications and associated sample policies will be available in one convenient location through your BoardDocs policy site.

This portal allows OSBA to streamline its communication with you and provides your district access to enhanced services, including:

policy recommendations on the same site as your currently adopted manual;
sample policies you need from current and previous updates;
access to draft and retired policies;
the ability for OSBA and the district to interact directly on a shared draft version of district policies.

Training on the new platform and process will be provided in a group setting on Wednesday, Nov. 18, from noon to 1 p.m. or Friday, Nov. 20, from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. Districts are encouraged to sign up for one of the live trainings delivered via Zoom. The training also will be recorded for later viewing. One-on-one training will be available for districts following the sessions. If your district already is an online policy client, it will be receiving more information regarding this transition, so please look for those communications to come.

We will be transitioning to providing the PDQ newsletter and sample policies directly through your BoardDocs policy website as a trial run in the February PDQ issue. If you are not an online policy client, you will still have access to PDQ, but the look and feel will be a little different once we complete the transition. The policy samples will be provided in a web-based format in lieu of Microsoft Word.

If your district isn’t an OSBA online policy district, we are waiving the additional $1,000 online conversion fees for districts that sign a contract for the service by Dec. 31, 2020. The annual cost for the online policy website is $1,500. However, if you are a BoardDocs governance client, your annual policy cost is only $1,000. Effective Jan. 1, 2021, districts must pay the $1,000 conversion fee the first time going online in addition to the annual policy fee.

We are excited for this transition, allowing OSBA to better meet your policy needs. The additional tools available through OSBA’s BoardDocs policy console allow us to more effectively update your district manual. This will be improved even further as we transition to working on the BoardDocs platform for providing recommendations to you in this format. Contact the author for any questions related to this transition or for more information on hosting your policy manual online.

Return to top