BoardBuzz

« Celebrate your inner geek | Main | Progressive school policy helps transgendered students assimilate »

July 14, 2006

Silence is golden?

Ever feel like telling someone to put a sock in it? Check out these two local news items from The Columbus Dispatch and the Asbury Park Press that ran in NSBA's Legal Clips yesterday:

After continued public criticism and complaints of district leaders and their decisions at the Groveport Madison, Ohio, school board meetings, the board has decided to end public comment at meetings for the next three months. To enforce this decision, two police officers attend the meetings. School boards traditionally reserve time during meetings for parents, students, and other community members to weigh in on the agenda or issues within the district. But when the discussion becomes unproductive, school boards can limit or eliminate public discussion, says Scott Ebright, spokesman for the Ohio School Boards Association.

School board member Teresa Burch said, "I've requested a little time to back off because it has gotten out of hand ... . I don't have the stamina of taking the shots."

Board Vice President Naomi Sealey understands the concern but warns that the district can't afford to alienate the public, especially with a potential $4.5 million shortfall if an emergency operating levy planned for the November ballot fails.

Other communities have also introduced measures to limit public comment. Those wanting to speak at a meeting in Twin Falls, Idaho, must be approved in advance. Some school boards simply limit the number of speakers permitted on a specific topic. After many disruptions, and a 119-day jail sentence for one disruptive man, Columbus decided to limit speakers to three minutes per topic and allow no more than four people to talk on any given subject at a single meeting.

Meanwhile, after the election of three new school board members to the Barnegat Township School District in New Jersey, the board has voted to repeal a sweeping confidentiality policy from its bylaws. The district's administrators had sought to provide protection for employees above and beyond the state's school board code of ethics. Among the controversial provisions in the policy was a prohibition on board members and candidates "publicly discuss(ing) or disseminat(ing) issues related to the board's legal, moral and regulatory responsibility for education." Another provision prohibits public discussion of any financial information. A provision that members who violate the rules can be removed from the board has provoked fears that board members would be unwilling to voice unpopular opinions.

School boards have the right to make rules governing confidentiality, but the Barnegat policy is uncommon, according to Michael Yaple, spokesman for New Jersey School Boards Association, who cites already existing state ethics guidelines for school board members. Local attorney Richard Gutman says the policy would not violate the Open Public Records Act, as long as the school district provides a way for people to get public records. If board members cannot agree on a new policy, the confidentiality rules will die.

Want more news and views on school law? Sign up for NSBA's free Legal Clips service that delivers a weekly roundup of education law news to your inbox. Check out a sample issue, here.

Posted July 14, 2006 1:00 PM | School Boards

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry