Expecting the government to keep pace with technology is a losing battle.

On April 2, I wrote about Senate Bill 2991, which would compel school districts to issue one-year expulsions for students determined to have committed sexual violence or assault against another student when there is a tangible connection to the school.

As of Monday morning, there’s been no further formal action on the bill, which has an April 24 deadline to clear the Senate Education Committee. That’s unsurprising given the way the General Assembly typically operates, but even if the governor signed something into law tomorrow, it still wouldn’t be sufficient for at least one elected official.

Also on April 2, Lake Zurich Community Unit School District 95 Superintendent Kelley Galt notified families that high school administrators learned Feb. 26 some of its students were reportedly using computer technology to generate fake, pornographic images of classmates. Galt said the administration notified police the same day and “issued school-based consequences” by March 6, after which it became a criminal matter exclusively.

Last week, the Lake County News-Sun reported about Jessica Vealitzek, a County Board member and high school parent, asking the District 95 board to temporarily relocate any students under investigation.

Current law empowers the board to expel implicated students for up to two calendar years. Under SB 2991, the mandatory minimum would be one year. With either guideline, there’s little doubt this would be some form of sexual assault; the district would just need to establish a tangible connection to school.

But the district also would need a determination of the acts committed. That’s a different legal standard from a criminal conviction – always a possibility with this level of infraction – but Vealitzek’s remarks indicated a lower bar.

“Allowing the boys to remain in the school building and in school sports while they are being investigated for sexual crime sends the wrong signal to the girls,” Vealitzek said, according to Joseph States, suggesting suspects should be shifted to the Regional Office of Education pending the investigation.

The debate about the proper course of action is robust. Sympathy for victimized students is understandable. School consequences can logically exist outside the standard criminal justice framework, just as it’s clear students’ daily life places them in contexts quite distinct from other situations involving accusers and suspects.

Yet it’s also easy to envision litigation challenging any policy imposing consequences based on accusations or initial evidence – schools have been sued for much less – and that invites concern about potential financial implications (read: tax dollars), which gets all sorts of attention.

The point here isn’t litigating a mother’s concerned request, but reminding that legislative debates often involve real people with challenging situations. Lawmakers can’t solve one problem before another arises.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.