The Battle Creek Public Schools Board of Education voted Nov. 17 to decline state 31AA school‑safety funding because the statute’s conditions would require the district to waive attorney‑client and related privileges.

Board president read a resolution citing Public Act 15 of 2025 and MCL 388.1631 (referred to in the transcript as MCL 388.1631AA) that described competitive and opt‑in funding for school safety and student mental‑health initiatives. The resolution warned that accepting 31AA money would, “as a condition of receiving either a type of 31AA funding … subject to and comply with a comprehensive investigation following such an event” and would cause the district to “waive any privilege that would otherwise protect related information from disclosure.” The board said the waiver could “expose the district to legal, reputational and operational risks.” (Board president, reading the resolution.)

Trustee Richard McClenny moved to adopt the resolution as presented; Trustee Hogan Jackson seconded. Trustee (speaker 11) urged the board to explain that, while the funds would benefit students, “we have to give up so much of what protects our students and families here.” The board conducted a roll‑call vote; the transcript records individual responses including Marilyn Jackson (Yes), Dr. Alicia Johnson (Yes), Dr. Nicole Perry (Yes), McLaney (No) and Charlie Fulbright (Yes). The motion passed.

The resolution directs the superintendent or designee to accept 31AA funds only if statutory conditions are eliminated or changed to preserve applicable legal privileges. The board’s written text clarifies that the district supports efforts to boost school safety and mental‑health services but will not do so at the cost of losing confidentiality protections tied to attorney‑client communications and similar privileges.

What happens next: the decision preserves the district’s current posture on legal confidentiality. The resolution also authorizes the superintendent to accept funding in the future if the waiver requirement is removed or modified; the board did not direct staff to take other immediate steps in this meeting.

The board’s action reflects a broader debate among Michigan districts about balancing new state funding streams with statutory conditions that can limit a district’s control over sensitive information.