Teachers - are you subject to Misconduct?

Notice to Richland 2 Teachers:

When the School Board approved the revision of Board Policy GBEB Staff Conduct on October 29, 2019, did you become subject to risk of a Misconduct charge?

At the October 29, 2019 School Board meeting, that seemed to be the case. But the wording in GBEB got changed somewhere between the end of the Board Meeting and publication of the revised Policy.

Read the revised Policy and the now-unemphasized line "possessing weapons on school property (unless otherwise authorized by law)".

The Policy now reads differently than approved by the School Board at its October 29, 2019 Regular Meeting. On that night the Board approved this language: "possessing weapons on district [sic] property (See policy JICI for items categorized as weapons.)"

On October 29 the Board removed "(unless otherwise authorized by law)" and did not accept the previously-proposed addition of "and the superintendent". It added "(See policy JICI for items categorized as weapons.)" At 1:05:34 on the YouTube recording of the October 29, 2019 School Board meeting Trustee-elect Amelia McKie was allowed to re-state her motion - "I move to approve Policy GBEB Staff Conduct as presented." Note that it was "presented" as removing "(unless otherwise authorized by law) and the superintendent" and including the "See policy JICI..." language.

But the relevant line in Board Policy GBEB, as it now reads on the District's website, states that (Misconduct includes) "possessing weapons on school property (unless otherwise authorized by law)"

In JICI a weapon is, generally, any item that could be used as a weapon.

How did "(See policy JICI for items categorized as weapons.)" get dropped from the version published now under Board Policies on the District's website? JICI never should have been part of the revision of GBEB, because JICI applies to students, not to staff or other employees. But the Board approved inserting it.

It can't just be dropped somewhere between the end of the Board meeting and the publication of the revision on the website.

Did the School Board understand the implications of dropping "(unless otherwise authorized by law)" from the Policy on October 29? Who added it back in? And who changed the word "district" (in the version before the Board) to "school" (in the published Policy), modifying property?

Would it have been a good idea for the School Board to request advice on wording from the gun community? Terminology in firearms laws is confusing. One of the problems, as I see it, is that the majority on the Board appears to be left-leaning and anti-gun. This is why involving the community is important.

[Edited 11/10/19: It may be that the staff just hasn't gotten around yet to publishing the revised Policy GBEB, because the revision date of 10/29/19 does not appear in the Policy that can be viewed online.]