The implementation of a new background check system for the school system has caused some confusion amongst members of the School Committee.

The new standard asks that schools adopt a new background check policy for certain individuals who interact with the school in various capacities, such as student teachers, maintenance workers (other than custodians), and school volunteers.

This check proceeds in addition to the regular Criminal Offender Record Information, or CORI, check that has been in use for years in Massachusetts.

While the CORI form simply provides a record of all court appearances for a given individual, the new background check process is much more thorough, including a fingerprinting process.

The committee ruled to allow day-to-day and in-classroom volunteers, volunteers on day trips supervised by regular school staff, and classroom observers to continue to operate with only a CORI form on file.

The committee also mandated that student teachers and volunteers for overnight events adopt the new background checks in addition to the CORI. All of these conditions passed with little to no debate.

Confusion came when deciding the policy in regards to outside maintenance workers. The committee was asked by the Superintendent to adopt a policy that would allow workers to continue with just a CORI provided that they are supervised by school staff. School Committee member Melvin Lazarus initially questioned how this observation could be carried out and enforced, as no school staff or faculty member has time to spend hours shadowing subcontractors.

On the other hand, many maintenance teams are comprised of ten to fifteen people, which would be a significant burden on businesses that want to work with the school department in terms of time and money ($35 per background check). However, this would also be a difficult crew size to monitor.

"How are we going to supervise a crew of five, ten people?" said committee chair Clifford Sylvia.

Difficult situations such as this led some on the committee to bemoan that they were "stuck between a rock and a hard place" with this particular facet of the new system.

Eliminating the observation would also mean that emergencies (such as a pipe bursting or heating going out during the winter) may not be dealt with in a timely manner. A specific contractor may not be able to obtain the background check in time to deal with the problem.

Committee Secretary Geoffrey Swett expressed that, as a parent, he was okay with demanding that businesses obtain the one-time check in exchange for the ability to do work for the school department.

However, all committee members acknowledged that the policy could be reexamined by the Superintendent and voted on at a later date.

Clifford Sylvia suggested that perhaps the language could be changed from "supervised" to "consistently monitored" so that school staff could simply check in with maintenance crews.

The final solution to this problem, however, remains to be seen.