Board requests rewrite of support‑staff fingerprint policy after lengthy first‑reading discussion

The Catalina Foothills School District governing board held a first reading Sept. 25 of proposed revisions to policy GDFA (support staff qualifications; fingerprint requirements) and asked the administration to substantially rewrite the draft to clarify multiple distinctions and exceptions.

Associate Superintendent Mindy Westover presented the proposed changes and said the draft specifies that all noncertificated personnel and unpaid personnel who are not parents or legal guardians and who work directly with students must obtain fingerprint clearance cards (identity‑verified fingerprint, IVP) as a condition of employment, with stated exceptions for noncertificated personnel who do not work at a school site and volunteers who serve during the school day. Westover said the revision also incorporates current practice and adds authority for the district to release background results to other school districts upon request.

Board members questioned organization, readability and the practical difference between a background fingerprint check and an IVP clearance card. Members asked for clearer headings, an explicit statement of who must have background fingerprints versus who must hold an IVP card, and suggested the policy explain renewal and reporting practices. One board member said the opening paragraph was hard to follow and recommended shorter sentences and a reorganization with subheads.

The board discussed implementation details Westover and staff provided: volunteers who assist during the school day have fingerprint background checks but are not required to obtain IVP clearance cards; after‑school volunteer coaches and some sponsors are required to obtain IVP clearance cards (district practice that exceeds statutory minimums); individuals who already have IVP fingerprints on file with the Arizona Department of Public Safety will not be required to reroll prints for the district; IVP cards require renewal every six years; and the district is notified if an IVP card is deactivated following a law‑enforcement action.

Board members also raised procedural concerns about clarity in the policy’s exceptions, the location of the IVP terminology, and whether costs for cards for unpaid volunteers should be borne by the district. Westover said the draft language was drawn from statutory text and that she would return with a reorganized, clearer version. The board did not vote on the policy; members asked staff to complete a comprehensive rewrite and bring it back for further consideration.