Wednesday, Sunday policy sent back to committee

For the third straight month, discussion over the Colby school board’s “school-community relations” policy, which dictates how school-related cocurricular activities on Wednesday afternoons and Sundays should be handled, dominated the conversation at their July meeting held this past Monday. After passing the first reading of the policy that would have kept the prior ruling of restricting any sort of activity during these times, barring specific circumstances and approval of the school’s athletic director or board of education, the board unanimously decided to send the policy back to committee for further discussion and adjustments rather than ratifying it.

A request from varsity head volleyball coach Wade Oehmichen to hold later Wednesday practices and open gyms on Sundays brought to light that the ruling was no longer part of the board’s policies. When the district changed the company who reviews and edits their policies, the prior rule did not make the transfer over to the new set of policies. The district’s current practices still follow the old policy, though given the requests by Oehmichen and the fact that the readdition of the policy is necessary, the board has discussed at length whether or not it should be adjusted.

Following last month’s meeting, it appeared that the board had decided to continue to follow the precedent that had been set by the previous policy, electing to pass the first reading of the new policy that, other than some additional language clarifying that elementary and middle school events could not be held on Wednesday after school and high school activities must end by 5:30 p.m., matched the prior ruling word for word. While there had been some discussion over whether or not “open gyms” could possibly be made as an exception to the Sunday restrictions and there was acknowledgment that the issue certainly had gray areas, the board ultimately decided to push forward with the policy as is.

However, all policies must be approved twice by the board before they are put into practice and opinions on the matter seemed to have changed on Monday when discussion opened for the second reading on the policy. Several board members who had voted to pass the policy during the June meeting stated that after thinking more on the numerous facets of the issue, further clarification and discussion were necessary.

Oehmichen, who spoke during the public participation portion of Monday’s meeting, restated his reasoning behind his request for an extended Wednesday practice. He pointed out that many of the girls’ varsity volleyball matches land on Tuesdays and Thursdays during the same week, making Wednesdays pivotal for corrections and to make adjustments following Tuesday matches.

“This leaves Wednesdays for me to correct Tuesday’s mistakes and prep for Thursday’s opponent, making it the most important practice of the week,” he said. “I’m not a teacher. There are days because of work that I can’t make it here until 5 p.m. but now I have to end practice at 5:30 just because it is Wednesday and that’s not fair to my girls, that’s not fair to my staff, and that’s not fair to myself.”

While the board seemed less inclined to remove the restrictions on Wednesdays entirely, members did make note that there should be a more conscious effort to work with the schedules of non-school coaching staff.

“Do we need to think about how we work with non-teaching coaching staff ? Maybe we need to look at that,” board member Teri Hanson said. “If we have more community members who are coaching, that’s something that we need to think about and how that affects some of our policies.”

Oehmichen also clarified what he requested for Sundays, delineating that he was looking for time to have an open gym, rather than practice.

“We never asked for Sunday practice, not once,” he said. “But that’s all I hear. What I asked for was a few hours during the summer, just June and July, on Sunday evenings. That’s it. Summers are short, schedules are full, and Sunday evenings fit into my schedule and it fits a large percentage of my girls’ schedules as well.”

The distinction between practices and open gyms, or what even an open gym would entail, was discussed at length at the previous board meetings and was something that the board continued to address on Monday. Definitions of whether the open gyms were considered open to the public, if they were sport-specific, and how they would be staffed and monitored were all touched upon, with some board members seeming more open to allowing open gyms on Sundays if these definitions could be more welldefined.

It was also noted that, under the policy being considered, exceptions to the Sunday rule may be approved in advance by the building principal and that final determination will be made by the district administrator and then by the board of education for anything more than twice per month, though such exceptions should be kept to a minimum.

“JV and varsity girls and boys basketball used a couple Sundays this winter to make up practices due to snow days,” board member Cody Gumz said to give an example of the exceptions being used. “There were other instances where they had Monday competitions, hence the Sunday practices. These are allowed, nobody is saying that they are not.”

A possible compromise for both Wednesdays and Sundays was that perhaps separate rules could be applied for the summer months and the school year.

“I think there’s a difference,” school board member David Decker said. “I wouldn’t have a problem with having Wednesday or Sunday practices or open gyms during summer months. During the school year it’s a little different. I don’t know if this policy is right with the way it is worded, because it does not specify during the school year or during non-school year time.”

Father Tim Oudenhoven of St. Bernard’s and St. Louis’s Catholic churches in Abbotsford and Dorchester as well as Margaret Mateer, whose daughter attends the Colby School District, both spoke in favor of keeping the policy as written.

“I worry for our kids and teens who are so stressed out all the time,” Oudenhoven stated. “I get a lot of our teens come talk to me who feel a lot of burden, who are trying to do multiple sports, and we expect a lot from them. What will really suffer is family life. I hope that Wednesday night can stay a family and church time. It is very important that there is one night a week where kids can be at home with their families.”

Oudenhoven noted that, if school athletics on Wednesdays and Sundays became commonplace, he was not certain when the church would be able to run their own programming, as other nights during the week are already dedicated to these things.

Mateer echoed Oudenhoven’s sentiment, noting that while she had specifically open-enrolled her child into the Colby school district for their coop gymnastics team with Medford, she believed that there still needed to be downtime for students to spend with their families.

“They do need their own time,” she said. “They also need time with their families; when else are we as parents going to have the time to guide them over the ethics and morals that we would like to instill in them? Most of my time lately is when I take her back and forth between practice. It’s not much time.”

During their discussion, the board also found that finding a balance between extra-curricular activities and downtime was important for the mental health of the school’s students.

“I just came back from a conference on Saturday and in the breakout sessions on mental health of students, they always say that kids are overcommitted, they don’t have any downtime, they don’t get away from all of it,” school board member Cheryl Ploeckelman said. “They are always at school, at practice, somewhere where they are always bombarded with information and other things.”

“I think we need to allow kids time away from peer pressure, adult pressure and expectations,” Gumz added in defense of the current policy. “I want equal opportunities and treatment for kids that don’t want a breakneck pace. That’s what I’m advocating for right now.”

“During the school year, I do feel that students need that day to be at home with their families and do homework,” school Decker also stated. “I feel that one day during the week, setting all religion aside, they need a night off to mentally rest.”

Disputes on Intention

Oehmichen contended during his allotted time that the policy under consideration would violate the board’s own policy, a state statute and two federal codes regarding religious discrimination.

“The problem with entangling religion with state run facilities is that you don’t get to choose just one religion to base the rules on,” Oehmichen said, making the argument that the current policy caters towards specific Christian denominations. “I will be advocating on behalf of the other religions in our community to be included in this rule.”

In a written request to the school board, Oehmichen asked that Friday at sunset through midnight on Saturday be added to the new policy in addition to Wednesday evenings and Sundays if the policy were to be passed. He stated that this is to account for the following area religions and/or churches: Marshfield Seventh Day Adventists, Samaritan’s Heart Mission Church, and Judaism.

The board did not discuss in detail the proposal that the policy was discriminatory or advantageous for members of one religion or another at Monday’s meeting, though Gumz stated that she did not find that to be the case.

“This is not, and has never been, a policy catering to one religion or another,” she said. “If you have read the policy, this policy does not have religious basis, no matter how many times you repeat it.”

The policy itself does not contain any language that states that the restrictions on Wednesday and Sunday activities are in place with intent that students might have the opportunity to attend catechism or religious events.

However, written correspondence between Oehmichen and district administration explaining why his requests were denied stated that part of the reason was not to conflict with church activities or religious education. It was also recognized by school board members and religious leaders at board meetings that removing the restrictions would take away time from those religious entities.

Oehmichen also stated during his time that the board would not follow through on his suggestion that Fridays and Saturdays also be off limits because it would then have an effect on the football games.

“This would adversely affect other sports, including football, which is a boys’ sport,” Oehmichen said of his proposed addition to the policy. “And ladies, I apologize, this is something that you will face your entire life. You will be treated differently.”

Gumz did not agree with Oehmichen’s assessment that the volleyball team was receiving unfair treatment due to it being a women’s sport.

“This isn’t a conversation about girls’ sports, as the entire board has daughters,” she said. “This isn’t a conversation about girls’ volleyball as four of [the board members] have girls that play volleyball at various levels. Hearing that narrative is disappointing.”

Board member Lony Oestreich noted that he believed that the original intention behind the policy was being lost and that it should be sent back to the policy committee for that reason.

“I think when this was talked about and when we had the meeting [with the policy committee], the intent of it, compared to where we are sitting right now, is very different,” he said. “I think on social media a whole bunch of stuff went on blast and I don’t even know where half of that came from. I think there’s a lot of new information, and as things have been talked about in the past six weeks, what’s fair or not fair, what’s consistent and not consistent, I think there’s too much gray and we have to figure some things out.”

“We are sitting here talking about, well it should imply this, it should imply this,” he continued. “That tells me that there’s not enough here and we need to take it back. I know that means that doesn’t mean there is an immediate answer today or tomorrow, but there is too much gray. We need to redefine it; we shouldn’t be sitting up here saying that we should change the verbage just to come up with an answer tonight.”

Other board members seemed to agree with the sentiment that the current policy was too vague and that perhaps additional concessions could be made.

“I really think this should go back to [the policy committee],” board president Bill Tesmer said just before the vote was held. “I think that the policy committee should invite our athletic directors, our superintendent, and our coaches for all our sports so they can weigh in on this. This is not just a volleyball thing. I think every sport should have a chance to weigh in on this. There’s still too many variables here.”

Ultimately, it was decided to send the policy back to committee for further consideration and possible revision.