by NICHOLAS D. CARUSO JR.
During the public comment period of a school board meeting, a district employee, concerned with community activism against a building proposal, said she believed the anti-referendum momentum was fueled by racism. An audience member (spouse of a board member) who was part of the anti-referendum movement shouted out, calling the teacher an obscenity.
Immediately afterward, the superintendent sent a letter to the offending member of the public requesting she refrain from using coarse language, that she apologize to the staff member and that she no longer would be allowed to address any school district employee except through the superintendent’s office. Failure to comply could lead to a ban from future school board meetings. During the public comment period of a school board meeting, a district employee, concerned with community activism against a building proposal, said she believed the anti-referendum momentum was fueled by racism. An audience member (spouse of a board member) who was part of the anti-referendum movement shouted out, calling the teacher an obscenity.
The anti-referendum group immediately responded with a statement requesting the staff member be held accountable for “insulting” community members.
Banning Offenders
This story raises several questions. First, the superintendent took it upon herself to discipline the offending person and offer an ultimatum. Exacerbating this, the individual in question was a board member’s spouse. The superintendent also threatened to ban the person from future board meetings and school grounds and ordered her not to approach staff members.
A final issue was whether the staff member had the right to comment during a public meeting.
While statutes differ among states, I don’t know of any place where the superintendent has the authority to send such a letter. The board of education is the corporate entity holding a legal meeting in its governance role. The superintendent should discuss this issue with the board chair and remind him of the obligation to control the meeting. In many states, a person who disrupts a public meeting can be forcibly removed (via police, preferably). Of course, I would recommend extreme action only in an unusual case. Often, a judicious use of the gavel by the chair is enough to stop this in its tracks.
The superintendent enforces board policy. She should review board policies and bylaws regarding public participation and meeting norms to see whether those polices are enforced fairly. If not, she needs to ask the board chair to make sure he knows the laws and how to best enforce them at meetings. The chair is responsible for meeting control, not the superintendent.
In my state, you cannot permanently ban someone from a public meeting or a public place. Most states presumably have similar rules. You have the right to expect certain behaviors of public visitors at a school or meeting but must treat all equally. You can restrict access to school property only as much as you would any other citizen. Attendees can be removed if they become disruptive, but doing so may cause more serious problems. I suspect if the errant member of the public had been admonished by the chair, it would have sufficed.
Expectations for public access to schools should be incorporated in your policy manual. I also recommend these policies be run past the board attorney before enacting anything. Some states’ laws may preclude an action of this sort.
Legally Entitled
I also can’t see where you can keep a citizen from approaching a staff member. You certainly can expect staff not to communicate with members of the public during the school day unless it is work-related, but after hours a staff member is out of your jurisdiction. If a person harassed them outside of work, they would have legal rights to explore on their own behalf.
The superintendent did raise the question of the teacher’s public comment, including the comments about racism in the community, with the board attorney and was told the teacher had not violated any policies through her speech and no discipline was warranted.
Lastly, in this case it appears the board member whose wife made the improper outburst did not get involved personally in the situation. If he had, I’d strongly recommend the superintendent work with the board chair to ensure the board member did not improperly interfere with your work. The superintendent’s employer is the board (not the chair) and issues involving your working conditions are a board problem.
Nick Caruso is senior staff associate for field service and coordinator of technology with the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education in Wethersfield, Conn. E-mail: ncaruso@cabe.org. Twitter: @gibsonjunkie