The superintendent's proposal to get tough with students who misbehave outside school met stiff resistance yesterday from school board members, who questioned the legality of the plan.
The measure, presented by Superintendent Carol S. Parham, would allow her to suspend a student "who has been charged with criminal offense of a serious nature in the community" until the case is settled in court or the principal feels the student no longer poses a threat in school.
Students could be suspended indefinitely after being arrested for possession or distribution of drugs or alcohol, violent crimes, hate crimes and any crime involving the use of weapon, explosives or poison.
Dr. Parham's proposal is one of three "zero tolerance" measures aimed at students who carry weapons, or items that look like weapons; who perform malicious acts; or who may pose a danger to their school as a result of their actions in the community.
Some board members said they thought that the policy covering activities outside school might be against the law.
"You cannot, unless the case is adjudicated, remove a student from a school," said board member Thomas E. Florestano. "Until it is adjudicated, it is a violation of civil rights to remove a student from campus."
Carolyn Roeding, a Pasadena parent, angrily agreed.
"This board policy is punitive. You are assuming that the student is guilty," she said. "These are alleged involvements until it is determined by a court of law. [Expelling a student] could negatively affect the student for years. Where is the positive support here?"
Other board members echoed Ms. Roeding's concerns, raising questions about how a principal would find out about a juvenile's behavior since police don't release those records and if the principal's actions would be based on hearsay.
"Once you're talking about conduct that is not on school property, you're getting into a quagmire," said board President Michael A. Pace.
Board members also were concerned that a student could be out of school for months awaiting trial, only to be cleared of charges.
The staff members who presented the proposals said alternative programs for students charged with crimes will be included in the policies.
Dr. Parham proposed the policies in response to an increase in verbal threats, physical assaults and weapons charges in the school system. The issue was studied twice, starting in 1992, but the school system never acted on the recommendation of those committees.
Darren Burns, the superintendent's staff attorney, defended the spirit of the proposal. "The idea with this policy is to give the superintendent and the board a fighting chance to make some disciplinary actions stick," he said. "This is not carte blanche to excommunicate a student for the least hint that they're doing something wrong."
Mr. Burns added that the discipline proposals are needed to warn students and clearly define students' boundaries, in the event of a lawsuit against the board.
Board members called for clearer and, in one instance, stronger language in two proposals dealing with in-school behavior. These proposals listed the offenses and weapons for which a student could be suspended or expelled.
Student board member Terry Gilleland voiced concern over the inclusion of tear gas spray as one of the prohibited weapons. He suggested that it should not be allowed in schools during the day, but that students should be allowed to carry it at evening events.
"I would hate for this board to have the burden of guilt that some harm done to someone could have been prevented if they had been allowed to carry some sort of self-defense mechanism," he said.