Free speech at issue over board policy

Aug. 29—A new set of rules adopted on Monday governs St. Joseph Board of Education ethics, but some critics said it goes too far beyond this, and could infringe freedom of speech.

Policy BBF, narrowly passed 4-3, assigns to board members the duties of care, loyalty and public trust. Members are told to act in the interest of students, not themselves, and that can include setting aside personal views for the greater good. On Tuesday, Board Vice President Kenneth Reeder denounced this as coded language, which risks discouraging dissent at board meetings.

"They're trying to tell us how to talk," Reeder said. "They're trying to tell us how to perform. Just because I'm on the school board, doesn't mean that I lose my First Amendment right to speak. That's what I was elected for."

Reeder acknowledged that he did not attend the Policy Committee meeting where the wording of policy BBF came up for review ahead of Monday's 4-3 vote. Policy committee meetings are routinely canceled when no policies are due for passage. However, Board President LaTonya Williams said, no significant pushback on policy BBF occurred at any other time before the vote.

"I hope board members are open to talking about those concerns as a group, and as a whole," she said. "I mean, if there are concerns, I'd love to hear about the concerns, I just didn't hear any."

Board members David Foster, who voted no, and Kim Miller, who voted yes, indicated that the opposition is based on language in policy BBF that could be overly vague. With most policies, a draft proposal is sent by the Missouri School Boards Association. These drafts are seldom edited, by design, since the district strives to remain in compliance with state standards.

"I think some are concerned about the wording being too abstract, and wanting more concrete expectations on board member behavior," Miller said. "We can refine those expectations in the future."

Foster likewise expressed hope that any troubles with the policy as written are still something the board can revisit. However, he stands by his no vote. It is uncommon for the school board to pass measures by a majority of 4-3, as leaders strive to come to a stronger consensus before a vote.

"Some of the issues that we've seen in the past suggest to me that our board ethics should have a little more detail and accountability," Foster said. "But I don't speak for the board. It's only my opinion."

Reeder took exception with talk that failure to pass policy BBF would have put the district out of compliance with the Missouri Schools Improvement Program. The complex formula meant to help districts produce better results for their students over time ultimately governs accreditation, how much the state may intervene in local public education and how much funding is received.

On matters of local leadership, Reeder said, the state needs to butt out.

"We don't have to take outside advice," he said. "We do not have to conduct ourselves as a 'go along to get along' board. We were elected. We make the decisions."

Board member Whitney Lanning likewise expressed surprise over this opposition, as it had not been heard in official forums before the policy's passage. Either way, this policy and one like it that passed 5-2 on Monday concerning discrimination do not, as Lanning put it, constitute a free speech concern.

"I can't imagine any reasonable argument in favor of speech that is unethical or in violation of anti-discrimination policy," she said.

Marcus Clem can be reached at marcus.clem@newspressnow.com. Follow him on Twitter: @NPNowClem