Jon Francis ["Jon"], is a 16-year-old junior in the 2002-2003 school year at Alta High School. He participates in extracurricular activities for the Alta District, particularly (but not exclusively) interscholastic athletics. The district's board has enacted a good conduct rule that addresses the behavior expected of students who participate in extracurricular activities. The board's rule provides for penalties that become harsher for subsequent violations of the rule while also providing means by which a student can reduce his/her penalty. For example, the punishment for a third or subsequent violation of the rule is 16 weeks of ineligibility to participate in extracurricular activities. This period of ineligibility may be reduced to ten weeks if the student either performs approved community service or, if appropriate, seeks an evaluation and follows through with any recommended treatment. The decision-making dynamics of the rule provide for the building principal and activities director to come together initially as the good conduct team to determine whether there has been a violation of the good conduct rule and to implement the punishment articulated in the rule. If a student or parent or a minor student wishes to appeal the decision of the good conduct team, the rule provides for an appeal to the District's superintendent. Further appeal, if desired, could be taken from the superintendent's decision to the local board. This part of the rule also states that "[d]uring the appeal process, the student shall remain ineligible."

The parties agree that on July 23, 2002, Jon was unlawfully in possession of alcohol. They agree that this is both a violation of state law (Iowa Code ? 123.47) and of Alta's good conduct rule. This was Jon's fourth violation of his district's good conduct rule. On or about September 5, 2002, Ms. Francis initiated a meeting with Principal Johnson in which she made him aware for the first time that Jon had "had an incident involving drinking" on July 23. It was her testimony that she made the principal aware that Jon voluntarily would be commencing an out-patient treatment program for chemical dependence on September 16, so that she could explain the demands of his participation in the out-patient program in hopes of keeping school/treatment scheduling conflicts to a minimum. She further testified that her expectation regarding the good conduct rule prior to meeting with Principal Johnson was that Jon would have to suffer the full consequences of his violation of that rule. According to Ms. Francis, she did not ask that Jon be given a chance to use the "Voluntarily Seeking Assistance" provision of the good conduct rule.Shortly after the September 5 meeting, the district learned that Jon had been issued a citation for illegal possession of alcohol in violation of Iowa Code section 123.47 as a result of his conduct on July 23, 2002. The citation and written notification to the school are dated September 3, 2002. There was conflicting evidence whether either Jon or Ms. Francis knew on September 5 that the citation had been issued as of that date.

Once the citation was a reality, however, Ms. Francis met again with Mr. Johnson on September 11, 2002. At this meeting the two of them, joined by Activities Director McNutt, signed a hand-written agreement meant to clarify whether Jon could take advantage of the Voluntarily Seeking Assistance provision. This agreement states that Jon will be fully eligible to compete in extracurricular activities for the district if he stays with his out-patient treatment program and either no citation is issued or the citation is issued and subsequently dismissed. The agreement further provides that in the event the citation is issued and upheld, Jon is to suffer the consequences of his violation of the good conduct rule. Ms. Francis testified that, as of the date of this hearing, the citation against Jon is still pending and has not been resolved. She also stated that her family identified Jon's substance abuse problem in January 2002. Regarding the intent of the Voluntarily Seeking Assistance provision, Mr. Johnson testified that it applies to not just substance abuse, but to other areas in which counseling is available to a student, such as anger management. However, Mr. Johnson added that the provision does not apply to a student who has been cited by law enforcement for illegal conduct. In other words, the district and its board do not mean for the provision to be used by students to avoid the consequences of its good conduct rule once law enforcement is involved.At it meeting on September 26, the Board was made aware of the agreement of September 11 signed by Ms. Francis, Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNutt. Ms. Francis did not claim at this hearing that she was not given a full opportunity to present her facts and arguments to the local board. The Alta Board of Directors found that Jon's activities of July 23 violated its good conduct rule, and voted to uphold the punishment of 16 weeks ineligibility given to Jon by the good conduct team. Testimony at this hearing established that Jon has met the requirements in the local rule to have his penalty reduced to ten weeks, and that, as of the date of the hearing, two weeks remain of that punishment.

Local school boards of education have been given authority to promulgate rules for the governance of their students in Iowa Code ? 279.8, which states in part that the "board shall make rules for its own government and that of the directors, officers, employees, teachers and pupils?and shall aid in the enforcement of the rules, and require the performance of duties imposed by law and the rules."

Ms. Francis' appeal is from the decision of the local board, not from the decision of the district's administrators. The Board did not make an offer to let Jon use the Voluntarily Seeking Assistance provision and then revoke the offer, which is the gist of Ms. Francis' complaint. The Board was aware of the agreement of September 11, and there was no evidence at this hearing that the board did not hear all of her points she made at this hearing. The Board then decided that Jon should suffer the full consequences of his violation of the district's good conduct rule. The reasonableness of the decision of the Board, and whether it was contrary to the best interest of education, is what the State Board examines. The Board was not bound by the initial offer made by Mr. Johnson or by the agreement of September 11; it correctly determined (as was the sense that Ms. Francis had prior to her first meeting with Mr. Johnson) that the provision was not appropriate in this case. . Learning that a student allegedly has run afoul of state or local law could initiate an independent investigation by the school, not dictate it. The school should not feel that its handling of a good conduct violation must parallel law enforcement's handling of the same violation. The standard of proof for law enforcement is a tougher standard to meet than the "preponderance of the evidence" standard that governs proceedings before a local school board. If a criminal charge is dismissed by law enforcement, it does not mean that it will be more difficult for a school or school district to prove the good conduct violation that may be predicated on the criminal charge.

That the decision of the Board of Directors of the Alta Community School District made on September 26, 2002, finding that Jon Francis violated the District's Good Conduct Code and upholding the consequence given to him by Principal Johnson and Activities Director Larry McNutt, was AFFIRMED.