After several months, the Oxford School Board finally passed the 2015-16 Athletic Code of Conduct in a 5-0 vote at the Aug. 26 regular meeting.
Board President Jim Reis and Trustee Mike Schweig were absent.
Passage, however, didn’t come without some robust debate.
At the Aug. 19 meeting, Trustee Mark Stepek and Schweig who were on a policy committee to read and evaluate the handbook couldn’t agree on everything, so they brought the issues to the board for discussion.
The main item for debate was ‘when does the code of conduct apply?? According to the handbook, the rule, which has been in place for several years is that the code of conduct applies all year long 24 hours a day and seven days a week.
Stepek didn’t like it.
‘I think that’s too much,? he said. ‘We’re an education organization, not a policing unit.?
He believes the rules should apply from the beginning of the season to the end of the season or any time the team or part of the team assembles for something team-related.
Stepek was one of the parents who protested at the October 8, 2014 school board meeting after several student athletes, including his son Blake, were suspended for drinking alcohol, using illegal drugs or using tobacco products at some parties around town.
Although Dan D’Alessandro was another parent whose kid got in trouble at one of the parties and he believes it made his son a ‘better young man? and made them ‘stronger as a family,? he agreed with Stepek the rules should apply only for the duration of the sport.
‘You’re either going to partake in drugs and alcohol or you’re not,? he said. ‘You’re creating a sense of ‘If I don’t say anything, I’m not going to get caught. Deny, deny, deny.? That’s not what we want to teach kids. We want to teach kids if you do something wrong you own up to it. I think our coaches are on the forefront of that. They know when their kids are doing something wrong and they need to say ‘Hey listen, you can’t do these things.??
Vice President Carol Mitchell believes more parents need to step up to the plate.
‘They need to run their house and they’re not doing it. They expect the school to do it and raise their children,? Mitchell said. ‘We didn’t have these kids, so I don’t believe we need to tell them what to do 24/7 everyday of the year. That I just think is overstepping and we need to let the parents . . . run their family.?
On the other side of the table, Schweig believes in taking a proactive stance with the 24/7 ? 365 rule and sending a strong message to students.
‘I want to give kids every possible reason not to abuse drugs or alcohol and if we can put one more thing in there saying ‘No, it doesn’t end and it’s year-round if you’re going to be an athlete.? It’s only if you’re an athlete because it’s a privilege to be an athlete and here (are) some added things we can do to keep you out of harm’s way.?
Trustee Kim Shumaker agreed.
‘It’s a year-round law. You cannot drink until you’re 21, ever. We swore as board members to uphold the law,? Shumaker said. ‘If we turn around and we say well, we feel bad for our kids and we’re not going to discipline them in certain times of the year, I feel that’s a double standard.?
Trustee Joyce Brasington echoed Shumaker’s thoughts.
‘When I was awarded a varsity ‘O? in high school, it meant something. It’s on my varsity jacket,? she said. ‘I don’t take the letter ‘O? off because I didn’t play volleyball in the winter. I didn’t take my jacket off because I wasn’t an athlete during a certain season. I was an athlete all year.?
Brasington noted her daughter Jennifer has used the Code of Conduct as a reason not to go to parties because she didn’t want to get in trouble or get kicked off her team.
‘With my parenting, this code of conduct carries more weight than my parenting does because she doesn’t want to lose the opportunity to participate,? she added.
‘It’s your job as a parent when your daughter says, ‘I’m not going because of the code of conduct.? No, no, no, you need to be a stronger parent and say ‘You’re not going because I’m your parent and I’m not letting you go,?? Stepek responded. ‘That’s the parents? job, not our job. We’re not breaking any laws by reducing it to just the season.?
As a parent, Superintendent Tim Throne said he was in favor of the 365 rule, as was newly-hired Athletic Director Cole Andrews.
Having worked in some capacity at five different districts, Andrews noted he didn’t know of a school that didn’t have the 365 rule.
In the end, the majority of the board agreed that they would be willing to keep the 365?24/7 rule if the offenses for being caught with substance abuse were modified.
According to Principal Todd Dunckley, the committee that worked on the athletic handbook did modify some of the offense charges.
For example, on a second offense, instead of being restricted from playing for an entire year, the athlete is only suspended for one-third of the regular season or one-ninth of the regular season if they’re willing to enroll and complete an Oxford Addison Youth Assistance abuse/assessment program.
Previously on a third offense, athletes were banned from participating in sports for the rest of their middle or high school career, but the committee changed it to restricting 12 months from the last contest the student participated in.
The board also made modifications to the ticket purchases as it related to high school students.
According to a policy that had been put in place under former Superintendent Dr. William Skilling, all students to get into games for free had to show their Oxford School ID card and be accompanied by a parent or they would have to pay $5 entrance fee for high school games or $3 at middle school games.
The board agreed K-8 students will be allowed in for free if they show their ID Card and are accompanied by a parent and high school students will be admitted for free with just their ID Card.
While Stepek didn’t fully agree with all the changes to the athletic code of conduct, he decided it was best to go along to get along.
‘I don’t fully believe in them,? he said. ‘But as a board member, that’s where everybody wanted to go, so I’ll be in support of them.?