Policy committee drops proposed student fines as it advances hazing policy to first read

The policy committee of the Upper Adams School District reviewed revisions to Policy 2.47 on hazing and voted to advance the draft to a first reading after rejecting district-level student fines.

Committee members said the draft was updated to align with the Pennsylvania School Boards Association (PSBA) language, replacing references to "police" with "law enforcement" and adding updated harassment terminology. Chair opened the discussion by noting the revisions and the optional bracketed fines section and said, "As I read that, I was surprised about the fines." The remark set off a debate over whether a school district should levy monetary penalties.

District staff explained that the law requires districts to adopt and enforce an anti-hazing policy, but that penalty choices are at the board's discretion. "The anti-hazing law requires you to adopt a policy and enforce itThe penaltiesmay include imposition of fines, withholding of diplomas or transcripts, suspension, dismissal, expulsion," a staff member said, describing the statutory penalty range.

The committee asked for clarification about "safe harbor" protections for individuals seeking medical assistance after a suspected hazing incident. Mr. Pahauke, a district legal/staff advisor, explained that safe-harbor provisions in criminal code language are intended to shield people who seek medical attention from prosecution.

Several committee members said fines were unnecessary and could duplicate criminal penalties; one member called district-imposed fines "overkill" and urged relying on withholding diplomas or established disciplinary steps instead. Administrators noted that the bracketed fine language was optional and could be removed without losing other enforcement options.

After discussion, the committee agreed to remove the fine language from the draft and to advance the updated anti-hazing policy to a first-read before the full board. No formal vote tally was recorded in the transcript; committee direction was captured as a procedural referral to the board for first reading. The committee also asked administration to prepare the revised draft for the board packet.

Next steps: the revised Policy 2.47 will go to the full board as a first reading; the committee requested administrators prepare final language for that packet.