School Safety Advisory Meeting Notes
Brouillet Conference Room
April 6, 2017
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Olympia, WA
Attendees: Mike Donlin; Brian Smith; Lance Hammond; Brad Klippert; Gerald Mertens; Barbara Thurman; George
Burpee; Andrew Rauch; Nancy Bernard; Cheryl Collins and Ruthy Cowles-Porterfield. Bill Evans. Matt Lemon.
There were no Zoom Meeting attendees this month.
Brian Smith, WIAA, welcomed everyone and asked if folks would introduce themselves.
Mike Donlin introduced Bill Evans, Safe Routes to School, Program Supervisor from OSPI. Bill informed the
advisory of the upcoming opportunity for districts to apply in iGrants for the “Safe Routes to Schools” grant. The
grant is for schools to purchase bikes for students to ride to school. iGrant opens up next week and will close on
April 21, 2017. The grant award will be $25K per district and the goal is to have the funding to districts by June 30,
2017. The funding for the grant is provided by the Department of Transportation. Bill asked if the advisory would
spread the word if they knew of any district that would be interested.
Mike went through the agenda and gave a brief overview of each item. He noted that the committee would
actually be discussing items in a different order than that which is listed on the agenda.
WASEM – Although our federal grant was due to close on March 31, the USDOE granted a No-Cost Extension
(NCE) through September. This extension will provide the opportunity to continue some of the work that was
started. Trainings that were scheduled for the winter, but due to weather had to be postponed will now be able
to be re-scheduled. The second, final district-level self-assessment and planning information gathering will now
be done in the extension period.
Drills - HB 1279 – The language added definitions regarding drills and the required number of them. This bill
addresses Earthquake drills (Drop, Cover, and Hold-on), although it strongly suggest but does not make an
earthquake drill mandatory. Districts/schools in tsunami zones should also have a walking evacuation drill.
 On a related note, Mike shared that he had a provided a REMS TtT in Oregon on Earthquake
Preparedness for Schools. This was a good training and a good reminder that we need to be prepared
for the likelihood of a natural disaster is far greater than other events such as an active shooter. Good
group discussion. The training is available here in WA.
SB1240 - The Restraint & Isolation data collection tool that was used last year for the first year of collecting the
data was not a very user friendly tool. The reporting process and tool for this year is under some re-construction
and will be much more user friendly. In addition, the timeline for schools and districts to report is more realistic
for this 2nd year. There was a good discussion on the topic with some realization that this is a very complex
topic/issue. The bill did not make it an easy process for schools and districts. There was good discussion on who
does the reporting at each level, and what the definitions mean for General Education versus Special Ed.
Reporting. The reporting requirement is all-inclusive, but the data is not required or reported categories such as:
gender, age, ethnicity, etc. There was much discussion and consensus that this is a very complex topic with many
different scenarios. Not all schools/buildings have the same procedures and/or resources available to them.
The committee discussed an email the Safety Center had received from a parent regarding schools being
designated a “Sanctuary School”, and her concerns for her children and other children in their school. This topic
as well is a very complex one and brings up many issues – such as: “What is a Sanctuary School?” The
recommendation for a response suggested that the sender contact her legislator(s) if she would like to see
schools have such a designation.
Mapping Proviso- Mike gave a brief description and explanation of the background of the Rapid Responder
Mapping System. Discussion went back to the original legislation from about 14 years ago and the implications
and impact on school safety planning a few years after that. Some schools are fully aware of the mapping and are
using it well while there are other districts/schools that aren’t. There have been some significant changes to the
backend and applications, however.
Last session, funding for school mapping was eliminated. Some funding was provided through the Governor’s
office. The mapping funding goes through OSPI Facilities School Construction Assistance Program (SCAP) and then
out to WASPC. From there, a contract has been in place with Prepared Response for years. (Prepared Response
was recently bought out by Venuetize.) After funding was eliminated, WASPC had started an RFP (RFI?) process
to look into a different provider.
In the meantime, over time, there have been several pieces of legislation around various other aspects of school
safety technology. The possibility of changing the mapping system at this point for schools (putting out a new
RFP) would not be a good or easy transition. Communicating with schools, law enforcement & first responders, in
general, is key to the success of the project. Dave Corr, WASPC, has been providing trainings on the system and
attending other training to help keep up with the new information available. One of the realizations of the
discussion was that not all schools/districts have the same level of need for all or aspects of the system.
To help accommodate the requirement for school mapping, OSPI has suggested that the current mapping system
be fully funded for this biennium. It looks like that will be the case. We have also suggested that a work group be
funded to examine
1. existing legislation on mapping – school mapping in particular – with an eye to needs,
mandates, expectations, etc.;
2. other “evolving” / emerging / newer school safety-related technologies also be examined
before additional legislation and funding written;
3. Legislation revisions, and safety technology guidance be developed.
4. Also, have this work be a part of the safety summit mandate around a plan to fund school
safety.
The group went through the Senate Budget and how it would or wouldn’t impact the Safety Advisory and Safety
Center. Mike shared an update on SSHB 1163, the HIB bill rom several years ago which called for the 5-year HIB
Work Group. That bill had provided funding for HIB; however, it actually funded more suicide prevention, initially
funding a contract with YSPP to address the work of the proviso. There is (may be) still a little funding for HIB.
The committee walked through the Safety Summit White Paper update. Mike went through the changes that he
had made from the original paper and explained that they were based on input from the last (March) SSAC
meeting. There was also discussion of the letter from the ESD superintendents to Superintendent Reykdahl. (The
letter was prompted by discussion at the March SSAC meeting.) Mike noted that he and Sup’t. Reykdahl had had
a chance to meet and discuss that letter. There were a couple points which needed some
clarification/explanation. Sup’t. Reykdahl was drafting a response. Lance and Gerald noted that members of their
Boards had also sent similar letters of support for the work of the Summit to Sup’t. Reykdahl.
Discussion and decided on the upcoming dates for:
o Next Advisory Meeting – May 4, 2017 at the OSPI Annex
 Agenda starters: the WSIPP study; WSSDA HB 1003 model policy draft;
Safety funding costs; status of the SAO audit; Summit #2 agenda starter.
o June advisory meeting – No scheduled meeting; however: HOLD THE DATE for now.
o SSAC Annual Retreat – August 3, 2017 – Location to be determined; Brian offered WIAA,
Renton.
o 2nd Safety Summit – October 5, 2017 – Location to be determined.
Meeting adjourned 11:25 am.
Insofar as the meeting adjourned early, after the meeting, Mike and Matt Lemon were able to meet briefly re: the
WSIPP study.