Background and policy clarifications:

1. Hemphill knows full well that parents of school crime victims and current members of the BHS Safety committee requested the DA assist in developing a data driven approach for BHS Safe School plan. BHS safety officer and chair of the safety committee refused to allow parent and law enforcement professional Matt Golde from participating on the school safety committee or providing data for the planning process.

2. I have always gone outside the district for answers to the most central policy questions. Below is the most recent correspondence from the CDE policy analyst. This section of education code corrects information from the district claiming they are prohibited from sharing robbery incidents on campus with local law enforcement. The district interpretation conflicts with state ed code as well as federal law. Does the district want me to contact the federal dept of education too?

Tracey’s reporting left out the information discussed during the meeting related to the issue of data sharing and policy.

Does anyone on the school board realize victims of school crime have legal rights?

Some body please sue these guys, since it seems that do not want to learn from their mistakes the easy way.

Hi Laura,

“Violent crimes” on the school campus must be reported, and the law
encourages principals to notify parents as well, unless it would
hinder an ongoing investigation. The process for reporting school
crimes should be part of the school’s comprehensive school safety
plan:

(e) (1) When a principal or his or her designee verifies through
local law enforcement officials that a report has been filed of the
occurrence of a violent crime on the schoolsite of an elementary or
secondary school at which he or she is the principal, the principal
or the principal’s designee may send to each pupil’s parent or legal
guardian and each school employee a written notice of the occurrence
and general nature of the crime. If the principal or his or her
designee chooses to send the written notice, the Legislature
encourages the notice be sent no later than the end of business on
the second regular work day after the verification. If, at the time
of verification, local law enforcement officials determine that
notification of the violent crime would hinder an ongoing
investigation, the notification authorized by this subdivision shall
be made within a reasonable period of time, to be determined by the
local law enforcement agency and the school district. For purposes of
this section, an act that is considered a “violent crime” shall meet
the definition of Section 67381 and be an act for which a pupil
could or would be expelled pursuant to Section 48915.
(2) Nothing in this subdivision shall create any liability in a
school district or its employees for complying with paragraph (1).

A “violent crime” must meet the definition of Education Code Section 67381:

67381. (a) The Legislature reaffirms that campus law enforcement
agencies have the primary authority for providing police or security
services, including the investigation of criminal activity, to their
campuses.
(b) The governing board of each community college district, the
Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the
University of California, and the governing board of independent
postsecondary institutions, as defined, shall adopt rules requiring
each of their respective campuses to enter into written agreements
with local law enforcement agencies that clarify operational
responsibilities for investigations of Part 1 violent crimes
occurring on each campus.
(c) Local law enforcement agencies shall enter into written
agreements with campus law enforcement agencies if there are college
or university campuses located in the jurisdictions of the local law
enforcement agencies.
(d) Each written agreement entered into pursuant to this section
shall designate which law enforcement agency shall have operational
responsibility for the investigation of each Part 1 violent crime and
delineate the specific geographical boundaries of each agency’s
operational responsibility, including maps as necessary.
(e) Written agreements entered into pursuant to this section shall
be in place and available for public viewing by July 1, 1999. Each
of the entities identified in subdivision (b) shall transmit a copy
of each written agreement it has entered into pursuant to this
section, and any other information it deems pertinent to its
implementation of this section, to the Legislative Analyst on or
before September 1, 1999.
(f) Each agency shall be responsible for its own costs of
investigation unless otherwise specified in a written agreement.
(g) Nothing in this section shall affect existing written
agreements between campus law enforcement agencies and local law
enforcement agencies that otherwise meet the standards contained in
subdivision (d) or any existing mutual aid procedures established
pursuant to state or federal law.
(h) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the
authority of campus law enforcement agencies to provide police
services to their campuses.
(i) As used in this section, the following terms have the
following meanings:
(1) “Local law enforcement agencies” means city or county law
enforcement agencies with operational responsibilities for police
services in the community in which a campus is located.
(2) “Part 1 violent crimes” means willful homicide, forcible rape,
robbery, and aggravated assault, as defined in the Uniform Crime
Reporting Handbook of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(3) “Independent postsecondary institutions” means institutions
operating pursuant to Section 830.6 of the Penal Code or pursuant to
a memorandum of understanding as described in subdivision (b) of
Section 830.7 of the Penal Code.
(j) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Kristin
Smart Campus Safety Act of 1998.
(k) It is the intent of the Legislature by enacting this section
to provide the public with clear information regarding the
operational responsibilities for the investigation of crimes
occurring on university and college campuses by setting minimum
standards for written agreements to be entered into by campus law
enforcement agencies and local law enforcement agencies.

A “violent crime” must also be an act for which a pupil could or would
be expelled pursuant to Education Code Section 48915:

48915. (a) Except as provided in subdivisions (c) and (e), the
principal or the superintendent of schools shall recommend the
expulsion of a pupil for any of the following acts committed at
school or at a school activity off school grounds, unless the
principal or superintendent finds that expulsion is inappropriate,
due to the particular circumstance:
(1) Causing serious physical injury to another person, except in
self-defense.
(2) Possession of any knife or other dangerous object of no
reasonable use to the pupil.
(3) Unlawful possession of any controlled substance listed in
Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 11053) of Division 10 of the
Health and Safety Code, except for the first offense for the
possession of not more than one avoirdupois ounce of marijuana, other
than concentrated cannabis.
(4) Robbery or extortion.
(5) Assault or battery, as defined in Sections 240 and 242 of the
Penal Code, upon any school employee.
(b) Upon recommendation by the principal, superintendent of
schools, or by a hearing officer or administrative panel appointed
pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 48918, the governing board may
order a pupil expelled upon finding that the pupil committed an act
listed in subdivision (a) or in subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or
(e) of Section 48900. A decision to expel shall be based on a finding
of one or both of the following:
(1) Other means of correction are not feasible or have repeatedly
failed to bring about proper conduct.
(2) Due to the nature of the act, the presence of the pupil causes
a continuing danger to the physical safety of the pupil or others.
(c) The principal or superintendent of schools shall immediately
suspend, pursuant to Section 48911, and shall recommend expulsion of
a pupil that he or she determines has committed any of the following
acts at school or at a school activity off school grounds:
(1) Possessing, selling, or otherwise furnishing a firearm. This
subdivision does not apply to an act of possessing a firearm if the
pupil had obtained prior written permission to possess the firearm
from a certificated school employee, which is concurred in by the
principal or the designee of the principal. This subdivision applies
to an act of possessing a firearm only if the possession is verified
by an employee of a school district.
(2) Brandishing a knife at another person.
(3) Unlawfully selling a controlled substance listed in Chapter 2
(commencing with Section 11053) of Division 10 of the Health and
Safety Code.
(4) Committing or attempting to commit a sexual assault as defined
in subdivision (n) of Section 48900 or committing a sexual battery
as defined in subdivision (n) of Section 48900.
(5) Possession of an explosive.
(d) The governing board shall order a pupil expelled upon finding
that the pupil committed an act listed in subdivision (c), and shall
refer that pupil to a program of study that meets all of the
following conditions:
(1) Is appropriately prepared to accommodate pupils who exhibit
discipline problems.
(2) Is not provided at a comprehensive middle, junior, or senior
high school, or at any elementary school.
(3) Is not housed at the schoolsite attended by the pupil at the
time of suspension.
(e) Upon recommendation by the principal, superintendent of
schools, or by a hearing officer or administrative panel appointed
pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 48918, the governing board may
order a pupil expelled upon finding that the pupil, at school or at
a school activity off of school grounds violated subdivision (f),
(g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), or (m) of Section 48900, or Section
48900.2, 48900.3, or 48900.4, and either of the following:
(1) That other means of correction are not feasible or have
repeatedly failed to bring about proper conduct.
(2) That due to the nature of the violation, the presence of the
pupil causes a continuing danger to the physical safety of the pupil
or others.
(f) The governing board shall refer a pupil who has been expelled
pursuant to subdivision (b) or (e) to a program of study which meets
all of the conditions specified in subdivision (d). Notwithstanding
this subdivision, with respect to a pupil expelled pursuant to
subdivision (e), if the county superintendent of schools certifies
that an alternative program of study is not available at a site away
from a comprehensive middle, junior, or senior high school, or an
elementary school, and that the only option for placement is at
another comprehensive middle, junior, or senior high school, or
another elementary school, the pupil may be referred to a program of
study that is provided at a comprehensive middle, junior, or senior
high school, or at an elementary school.
(g) As used in this section, “knife” means any dirk, dagger, or
other weapon with a fixed, sharpened blade fitted primarily for
stabbing, a weapon with a blade fitted primarily for stabbing, a
weapon with a blade longer than 3 1/2 inches, a folding knife with a
blade that locks into place, or a razor with an unguarded blade.
(h) As used in this section, the term “explosive” means
“destructive device” as described in Section 921 of Title 18 of the
United States Code.

I hope this is helpful.

David Kopperud
Education Programs Consultant
California Department of Education

Oops, I forgot to name the staff chair of the safety committee responsible calling the shots, Billy Keys.
He is co-chair with parent Margit Roos-Collins.

Last night, I went to and spoke at the Berkeley Board of Education meeting about safety at BHS about my concern re their legal advice and their legal position regarding using the police department as a resource.

Later in the meeting I was particularly upset about a derogatory comment made by Board Member Hemphill regarding the District Attorney’s Office, reported in the article above.

But I heard Hemphill say that “the District Attorney” had not responded and I assumed that they had contacted the elected District Attorney, Nancy O’Malley, directly and that she had not responded. I personally found Hemphill’s gratuitous remark particularly galling because of all the time and effort I have expended trying to get the Berkeley School authorities to use the law enforcement resources, and especially the juvenile division of the District Attorney’s office where the information about the dangerous crimes that BHS students are committing resides. I personally had repeatedly bagger and begged the Juvenile District Attorney, to bring information to the school and the school administrators about the Berkeley High students and the degree in which they were involved in dangerous crime. I was unrelenting insistent and I also knew he had a freshman at BHS whom he is very proud and loves dearly and I played on his own parent instincts. But I was just one of MANY Berkeley parents begging him to go to the school.
I sent repeated emails to Susan Craig, the Head of Student Services of the School District, the Superintendent, the Members of the Board of Education, and the Principal, requesting a meeting with the Juvenile D.A. and the Chief of Police, asking that they reach out to the law enforcement community for information and co-operation, but that particular meeting never happened.

I was present with the Juvenile D.A. at three Berkeley High safety related meetings that he had come to and I witnessed him greeted with hostility and disregard by Berkeley school authorities. The schools official response to the information that was set out was Dean McDonald’s public declaration that the “he knew” the Juvenile District Attorney and that the attorney was “loose with the truth.”………………..And now the quip from Hemphill. (Also related – the unexplained refusal to accept the top two recommendations buy the Berkeley Police Department regarding the gun situation at BHS?)

From what I have seen, there is contempt by Hemphill, McDonald and other school authorities for the law enforcement people in our community, who work hard everyday to solve problems of kids and crime. There seems to be an attitude of by some of these officials that law enforcement people are their intellectual inferiors and ethical retards and if law enforcement doesn’t serve up what the school wants to hear on a silver platter they will be ignored or even vilified.

The situation is nothing short of ludicrous if you look at it from the perspective a community member who is paying all of these agencies to accomplish safety for our kids. Is it fair to have a reasonable expectation that they could treat each other with a modicum of respect. How about they just CALL each other on the phone????????????

Watch the tape.

Wilson challenged the district’s explanation claiming they are prohibited from sharing more information with the board. There are many ways to protect confidentiality legally and still share information so that policy makers can do their jobs.

Laura, I just read these state statutes that you seem to firmly believe apply to the Berkeley High School but did you note that the law you quote at length, Education Code Section 67381, applies to community colleges, UC, etc and POSTSECONDARY eductional institutions? You present several laws under your confusing premise that they apply to BHS . . . . but they don’t all apply. It is confusing advocacy.

You don’t seem to be trained to write as a legal professional and maybe, since I am a trained attorney, I am better able than you to read what the laws you quote actually say. You offer a mishmash of laws that all sound pretty good and logical but they don’t all apply to high schools. You undermine your position with such an approach.

I think your main point, although it is hard to identify your main point and I acknowledge I am just guessing here, is that the principal not only has a right but an affirmative duty to inform parents of violent acts on campus. I think you are right if that is your point. but when you cite the law 67381, that I just referenced, to buttress your position, you give your critics room for evasive responses that do not address your reasonable point.

I think I agree with you. I think the principal or his designated staff has an affirmative, statutory duty to tell parents about crimes in the school. But the law you quote that defines violent crime does not apply to BHS: that law very explicitly is directed to postsecondary institutions. Perhaps you offer that law to give us some insight into legislative intent? if that is what you were doing, you could have been more clear.

Simply quoting good laws that sound, on the surface, to support your point is poor discourse.

I think it is clear and easy: the principle has a statutory, affirmative duty to tell parents about crimes at the h.s. in a very timely fashion. If he says he doesn’t tell parents because he has manufactured some kind of right to privacy, he’s full of crap. You are right, Laura. but you overmake your case.

I think I agree with you Sharkey. I imagine the patterns of behavior of public employees that I think I see here in Berkeley unfold everywhere . . and yet, it seems to me that Berkeley public employees seem to become detached from the foundational proposition that they serve the public and not their own personal agendas. They are not paid to maintain their turf: they are paid to serve the commons. But they are insulated from meaningful job insecurity, they become very protective of their own turf and they lose sight of the overaching foundational premise that they serve beyond the contexts of their own egos and turf. It happens everywhere, I guess, but, gosh, Berkeley public employees seem to feel so entitled. And it often seems, esp. in city planning, that public staff feels more beholden to the rich developers who suck up to them than, to, um, the public at large?

I was using shorthand, remember this is a blog, I made the suggestion because the dialog is revealing, at the same time I did answer the question.

I think Eric can figure that out.

Look, I am up to my ears in serious and difficult work transferring my disabled brother social services benefits between counties, and all the bureaucracies messed up and no one has been able to sort it out easily. So don’t expect me to be perfect by your standards, unless you are paying me.

These sections apply to BHS in FULL – according to The School Districts Attorney. On all other counts you are right: the Ed Code is confusing and ripe for advocarial interpretation. And it is more complicted than even that considering the body of case law that is annotated in the annotated versions of these Codes. Case law can be controling and if the statute doesn’t provide penalites or remedies when an institution fails to comply, the provisions might be toothless and near impossible to enforce.

As usual Hemphill has analyzed her “feelings” and not the facts: The DA said something that caused her to “feel” discord, therefor it was inflammatory.

What Golde said was revelatory not inflammatory. He reviews all the juvenile arrests made by the BPD and charges the ones he thinks he can win.

And surprise! The biggest losers this BHS crime version of “Don’t ask. Don’t tell.” are the “at risk kids” for whom real tracking and accountability might provide the way back to society. Instead the BHS admin provides a safe haven for their last hurrah…on the way to prison.

Exactly.

in the ed code section the CDE provided which I posted here yesterday includes sections referring to MOU agreements between schools and police for how they share data, investigate crime and operational response.

That is one of the most important missing piece here, BUSD claims they have a great partnership with law enforcement, but the facts reveal that victims of school crime are not being served nor are the highest risk teens as you correctly state will be incarcerated as adults.

Does anyone else notice that for the last several years BUSD is contracting with religious institutions while they shun the legal responsible to partner with law enforcement?

A few years ago B-Tech discipline plan including methods based on Christianity, I took to the former Supt for reviewing two years in a row.

While Pastor MacBride appears to have some genuine influence and interest in certain portions of the population, it is interesting that his name/affiliation is more important in these meetings than are any specific police officers who they should be partnering with. Christianity-based discipline? We see how well that’s worked for the past couple thousand years.

For some reason, BerkeleyParent, there is a faction of people/parents in this community in addition to the School Board who simply do not want to hear the truth as it is. There is some pseudo-liberal attitude that makes it un-PC to admit that Berkeley has the same problems that other “less fortunate” districts have to face. I honestly wonder if it’s going to take a murder at the high school for everyone to wake up; until then, it seems being told the truth about severe crimes — crippling assaults, armed robberies, et al — only creates an aura of disbelief and accusations of being ‘inflammatory’. Frankly, the hideous crimes that do occur at BHS have been happening for at least 20 years now (and longer, if you to ask me, a student from 1967 – 1980, though admittedly far worse than in my day) , and always those who challenge the BUSD in any way are conquered by a method of contempt, separation, marginalization, discreditation. The security at BHS acts like they have their own little “mob” — it’s disgusting to see people like Billy Keys openly and actively flirting with the teen girls, while turning a blind eye to many a crime, while coming down ‘hard’ on others. The BPD isn’t really welcome at Berkeley High; note that they are increasing their on-campus police-person from 4 to 5 days – one wonders if everything that happens at BHS occurs on that fifth day when there wasn’t a police presence? The police have publically stated on numerous occasions that they cannot tell the Security officers from the students when they are called in because Security refuses to wear any identifying clothing –their current ‘uniform’ is a t-shirt which is often hidden from view by their jackets. Mr Huyett et al would rather discredit Mr. Golde than admit that he isn’t just in the D.A’s office – he is a parent and Berkeley resident. He told the truth because he was sick of listening to the same old rhetoric and cover-ups. I’d listen to Golde over any of these useless miserable excuses for Berkeley Liberalism any day of the week. Franky I’m sick of the perpetrators being touted as societies victims, as if the true victims have no right to complain, file suits or otherwise try to protect themselves.