Principal John McCarthy spoke on behalf of the DHS School Council, which made the recommendations after reviewing the two documents earlier this month and found differences in language, including where they relate to leadership positions and violations of the substance abuse policy.

The main inconsistency was that under language in the two handbooks, a leader in a co-curricular activity loses that leadership position after the first violation, while an athletic leader is only removed if absent for more than two weeks due to penalties under the athletic or student code of conduct.

McCarthy said that the council, as well as students, overwhelmingly felt that students in leadership positions in both areas are role models and should be held to a higher standard.  “[The council] feels these inconsistencies are creating a problem now, so we should have fairness and consistency,” said McCarthy.

Therefore, the council recommended that both handbooks state that a coach or advisor may remove as a captain, co-captain or leader a student who fails to meet the responsibilities of the position, becomes academically ineligible or violates the student or athletic code of conduct.  Furthermore, the group proposed that a student removed from either leadership position not be allowed to hold another position for the remainder of the school year.

Committee member John Magnarelli asked McCarthy if the council considered removing an athlete for the season as well as removing a leader for a similar period of time, rather than for the whole year.

McCarthy said that the issue was that another student, be it a vice-president or co-captain, would assume the vacancy and if reinstated later, that student would then lose that spot.

He added that while he understood Magnarelli’s desire not to punish the student for the whole year, it is more common in athletics for leadership spots to change per season and sport than for co-curricular positions that are year-round and new positions rarely arise later in the school year for newly created committees.

The school committee passed the council’s recommendation 4-1 with Magnarelli voting in opposition.

In other business at Wednesday’s meeting, the school committee:

*Met in executive session for nearly an hour to discuss collective bargaining issues.  Present at the session were all five school committee members, Superintendent Eileen Williams and Assistant Superintendent John Kerrigan.  Williams said that committee member John Heinstadt did recuse himself from part of the session as his spouse is an employee of the public schools.

*Unanimously approved executive session minutes for 2003.  In reviewing the minutes, Magnarelli noted that there was not a lot of detail for the sessions that sometimes lasted over an hour, yet only stated that previous executive session minutes were approved.  Magnarelli asked that in the future, minutes be more detailed in the form of a subject line that gave a better indication of what was being discussed in these sessions, a move that was approved by the committee.  Magnarelli also questioned why all the minutes were released once a year and asked the committee to consider releasing them after they are no longer sensitive to what is being discussed per language in the Massachusetts General Laws.  That suggestion was tabled for discussion at a later date.

*Gave Business Manager Mickey McGonagle permission to go forward with an outline on an RFP for legal services.  McGonagle said he would put the bid out this week and that the committee could specify further details when a contract is worked out later.

*Heard from Williams regarding a future bid for vending machine services at the schools.  Williams noted with increased media coverage of obesity in children, the committee may want to discuss having “healthy” and sugar drinks or change to only healthy options for students.  This discussion was postponed until the March meeting as the group’s February gathering will focus mainly on the FY05 budget.

*Unanimously voted to ratify the cafeteria workers’ contract.  Williams said the contract includes a two and a half percent salary increase effective July 1, 2003, a three percent increase effective one year later and a three and a half increase effective on the same date in 2005.