The Devil Is In The Details

The Oley Valley School Board has been trying to pass a policy, which prevents reasonable public participation at board meetings.
The board has not been getting good press or a favorable civic reaction to their plans to restrict free speech.
They are attempting to sell the idea that the new policy is harmless. This same school board tells the public that a $1,300,000, new synthetic, track will not affect taxes either.
A closer look at sections of the policy suggests it is anything but benign.
Section 7. Hearing of Citizens
The School Board shall establish guidelines to govern public participation in formal School Board meetings necessary to conduct its meeting and to maintain order.
In order to permit fair and orderly expression of public comment, the School Board shall provide reasonable opportunity at each open meeting of the School Board for residents and taxpayers to comment on matters of concern, official action or deliberation before the School Board prior to official action by the school Board.
"Reasonable" is the operative word. The board asserts that three minutes is enough time to talk about a 200 line item, $25,000,000 budget. It is not enough time and the taxpayers are owed the decency to express their opinions.
The board violated this section at the July 19,2006 meeting, when board President Robert Heckman made a motion to cancel the combined meeting in August. His motion should have been on the agenda for public comment, but it was not.
The board passed his motion and the community had no say in the matter.
The School Board shall require that all public comments added to agenda items be made at the beginning of each formal meeting.
If the board does not put an item on the agenda, then votes on it anyway, how can the public comment?
If the School Board determines there is not sufficient time at a meeting for public comments, the comment period may be deferred to the next regular meeting or to a special meeting occurring before the next regular meeting.
The board should make time at the current meeting to address the public's concerns. Deferring to the future is nothing more than a stalling tactic.
The presiding officer at each public School Board meeting shall follow the School Board Policy for the conduct of public meeting. Where his/her ruling is disputed, it may be overruled by a majority of those School Board members present and voting.
The chance that a board would be so outraged by a presiding officer's decision, that they would overrule his actions is slim to none.
Whenever issues identified by the participant are subject to remediation under policies and procedures of the School Board. They shall be dealt with in accordance with those policies and procedures.
This section is nothing more than a repeat of the new policy content so it is repetitive and verbose.
The School Board requires that public participants be residents or taxpayers of this district or:
1. Anyone representing a group in the community or school district;
2. Any district employee;
3. Any district student.
The board may have a problem with this rule. Any school which accepts federal funds, must be open to the public regardless if they are from the district or not.
A member of the public present at a meeting of the School Board may address the School Board in accordance with the School Board's rules.
Citizens who want to address the School Board must complete a blue card prior to the meeting for an opportunity to speak. The card must state name, address, and topic to be address to the School Board. Those failing to complete a blue card must seek permission from the presiding officer prior to speaking.
This obstacle can be easily abused. It is a process for screening speakers and topics. The First Amendment says nothing about screening public comment.
The public comment/period shall be for up to thirty (30)minutes,
including response from the School Board, as scheduled on the agenda at the beginning of the meeting.
The Reading Eagle editorial cited a case in Lackawana county where the judge properly ruled that time limitations are against the law.
Presentation of items of interest or concern by an individual citizen or by a group spokesperson(s) shall be limited to three minutes.
This is applicable to a casual comment or one question to the board. It certainly is not enough time to discuss a school budget or the board's effort to shut down public input.
If there is remaining time within the allocated thirty minutes additional speakers shall be recognized.
If the board does not want to hear what you had to say in three minutes, why would they extend the time?
Minutes may not be donated to other speakers.
This rule contradicts the US Congress's policy during their sessions. If the sharing of time is good enough for the Congress, why is it not good enough for the Oley Valley School Board?
If interest and conditions warrant, the presiding officer may extend the time period allocated for each topic.
If you do not bore the board, they will let you proceed. On the other hand, if you are considered a "diatribe" or "Fidel Castro", you shall be seated or removed.
If a participant reads a prepared statement in order to facilitate discussion a copy of the prepared statement may be presented to each School Board member, Superintendent, Solicitor, and Board Secretary prior to the individual reading the prepared statement. If copies are not available, district personnel will make copies prior to allowing the individual to speak.
This is another petty attempt to place an obstacle in front of citizens trying to address the board.
After a participant orally presents his or her statements or questions,
the presiding: officer reserves the right to do the following:
· Place the matter in its proper place on the agenda
. Request that the participant raise the issue before a committee of the school board or an ad hoc committee of the school board to raise the question administratively.
· Request that the administrative staff study the same and then issue a report at a future meeting:.
· Direct the matter be placed on the agenda of some future meeting:.
· Table the concern indefinitely, if decided it does not require immediate consideration.
· Deny the request.
· Direct that a member of the Administrative Team or another appropriate individual respond to the request at the meeting or at some future meeting.
· Take other action the presiding: officer feels necessary.
Translated...it is the circular can the board intends to use for public comment.
All statements. inquires or comments shall be directed to the presiding
officer; no participant may address or question Board members individually, administrative team members individually, school employees,
or members of the public individually.
Of course, if a school board member decides, for example, to verbally attack or intimidate a speaker, there is no protection for that citizen.
The Presiding: Officer may:
. Interrupt or terminate a participant's statement when the statement is too lengthy. personally directed, abusive, obscene, defamatory, or irrelevant.
This is very subjective and subject to exploitation by a partisan presiding officer.
We have witnessed the lack of objectivity and caring by Mr. Cappa.
. Request any individual to leave the meeting when that person does not observe reasonable decorum.
· Request the assistance of law enforcement officers in the removal of a disorderly person when the person's conduct interferes with the orderly process of the meeting
.Call for a recess or an adjustment to another time when the lack of public decorum so interferes with the orderly conduct of the meeting.
A potpourri of choices the board can use to keep you silent instead of answering questions.
This maze of new regulations is not designed to make you feel welcomed at the school board meetings.
This policy was meant to have a first reading on July 19,2006. There was no reading because there was no discussion on this matter by the board.
The next policy meeting is Thursday, August 3,2006 at 7:00 PM at the Administration Building boardroom.

School Board Puts Out The Unwelcome Mat

An empty school board room may be the future of Oley Valley School Board. Although not on the agenda for the public to comment at the July 19, 2006 meeting, the board voted for the second time this summer to cancel a combined meeting, this time for the August schedule.
They canceled the July session in June.
Combined meetings are held prior to the regular school board sessions. They give the public the best opportunity to view and discuss issues that will appear on the agenda prior to the regular meeting. At the regular meeting, the board then votes on those topics.
These cancellations come at a time when the district is changing the public participation policy. The policy committee has been under fire from the community and the press for trying to prevent the citizens from speaking at board meetings.
The committee claims that new speaker restrictions will only be for the regular meetings. However, if the board cancels other sessions, then the community will only have the limited chance to speak at all.
The alleged policy revisions appear about the same as the initial submission. The First Amendment takes a hit with screened topics and speakers, three minutes per speaker,
thirty minutes for public comment on all topics, elimination of sharing time among speakers, presiding officer can terminate public statements at will, and forced removal by law enforcement.
A myriad of regulations for us to follow, and now cancelled meetings, await the taxpayers.
Scarlette Z. Gotwals, one of the three policy committee members adamantly claims the community has more than ample time, place, and opportunity to address the board.
Her and the other board members actions speak louder than their words.

Policy Committee Struggles with Free Speech

The Policy Committee meeting on July 6, 2006 addressed the public participation revision at school board meetings. This revision has caused such a controversy in the Oley Valley School District that the committee had to reconsider their original proposal to the school board.
The committee President, Robert J. Cappa is pushing hard for drastic changes to the public's right to address the school board. He wants a number of rules added to the current policy that will prevent a person from their constitutional right of free speech.
The policy change will apply only to the community, but not to others who may address the board.
The procedure will limit a speaker to three minutes and a topic to thirty minutes. The presiding officer may terminate the speaker's statement at any time. He can summon law enforcement to implement his decision.
The other policy committee members Christopher M. Hannum, Scarlette Z. Gotwals endorse the basic intent to restrict public input.
An audience member stated that three minutes is not enough time to fully discuss a $25,000,000 budget. Another citizen indicated that if the board put a time limit on a topic, it would violate the Sunshine Law and would be subject to a lawsuit.
None of the people who attended the meeting spoke in favor of the committee's intention to restrict public participation. A number of them questioned the motives of the proposed action, since the previous meeting guidelines have been used successfully for years.
The Policy Committee said they will resubmit the changes to the school board at the July 19,2006 meeting.