Do you have a First Amendment right not to audibly say your name and address to speak at a Wake County school board meeting?
That's the contention made by the ACLU of North Carolina in a letter sent this week to the school board. In the letter, Katherine Lewis Parker, the group's legal director, writes that having to to say your name and address out loud could put speakers in fear of being retaliated against for their views.
"We believe that requiring individuals to audibly state their names and addresses in order to be permitted to speak at their own school board meetings is a form of censorship of the speaker's message based on content, in violation of the First Amendment," Parker writes.
Parker adds that they don't believe saying your name and address out loud during the public comment period is required under state law. She tells board members "we strongly urge you to abandon this requirement."
Most of the speakers at the recent meetings have been critics of the new board majority. The ACLU is more likely to be in sympathy with those speakers.
Also as part of the letter, the ACLU wants a list of people who’ve signed up to speak at school board meetings since Dec. 1 and a list of people who have up signed up to serve on community advisory committees.
But the biggest request in the letter is one asking for all e-mails between and among current school board members from Oct. 1 through the present that are related to school board business. The ACLU is asking for messages from both the school district and personal e-mail addresses for board members.
The ACLU would likely have a hard time getting the messages from the new board members before they took office on Dec. 1. Their school district e-mail addresses weren't activated until they were sworn in.
Some critcs of the new board have complained about how they met together before they took office. The new members have defended it by saying they weren't subject to the Open Meetings Law before they took office.
Comments
1
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 13:15 — festus1
... is the loneliest number
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 21:00 — Apexter... is the loneliest number that you'll ever do.
Hypocritical?
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 14:01 — SDR256It appears hypocritical to me that the ACLU would be concerned about the fear and anxiety involved with announcing your name and address claiming that it might intimidate some people from speaking - while AT THE SAME TIME requesting the same information about those speakers since Dec1. I'd be much less concerned about the board and the broader public having my information than an organized political organization like the ACLU requesting to collect it. Why?
I wonder...Mr. Hui?
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 09:21 — AngelaWgiven the ACLU's over-reaching attempts, would the N&O ever be *allowed* to divulge anonymous bloggers info?
So...
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 12:56 — Bob_Sconcethe N&O isn't subject to public records requests. The N&O also has a privacy policy (see the link at the bottom of the page) which says what it can do with your information. The terms of service (also linked at the bottom of the page) assert that the policy is legally binding.
It's an interesting question, though. I imagine that the newsroom might not be too happy with that situation -- what happens if, for example, a public official or candidate posted a very newsworthy statement, but did it anonymously? The Privacy Policy doesn't allow the N&O to publish that information.
Teachers
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 00:35 — sarahtchewTeachers were asked to complete a separate survey. We had to put our school, job and employee number. There were more than one who questioned what would happened if we said anything that the new board would disagree with.
No Question
Tue, 02/09/2010 - 00:48 — WCTeachrWe absolutely have to be careful. We wear an invisible muzzle called job security, and to speak out against the Mandatory Year Round situation would be a sure black mark against us. Even as a parent with children in WCPSS schools I need to watch what I say and who I say it to regarding the school calendar debate.
"Teachers were asked to
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 00:44 — user12345"Teachers were asked to complete a separate survey. We had to put our school, job and employee number. There were more than one who questioned what would happened if we said anything that the new board would disagree with. "
Do you think the new board members will try to punish the teachers who wanted YR?
"Do you think the new board
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 11:24 — Apexter"Do you think the new board members will try to punish the teachers who wanted YR?"
No, and I don't think that would be the teachers' fear. WCPSS has around 17,000 employees (or it did before all the layoffs; I don't know what the total is now). I don't think anyone seriously believes that board members are making lists and checking them twice on the comments of individual employees.
But at the individual school level? Oh, yeah, I could believe that teachers would be very concerned about being identified as a troublemaker at their schools. It is the principal who would have much more ability to make a teacher's life miserable than a school board member.
Old Board Yes
Tue, 02/09/2010 - 01:16 — WCTeachrThe old board members were absolutely not accepting. One coworker spoke out at a community board meeting last year and was confronted by an angry Patti Head in the hallway outside the auditorium. I anticipate her speaking again this year and feeling protected with Debra Pricket in attendance.
"Oh, yeah, I could believe
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 08:42 — user12345"Oh, yeah, I could believe that teachers would be very concerned about being identified as a troublemaker at their schools. "
So are teachers who prefer YR "troublemakers"? I do not know why the new members would be so hateful ... WCPSS needs some anonymous way of providing feedback that the new member and principals cannot use to hurt teachers.
"So are teachers who prefer
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 21:14 — Apexter"So are teachers who prefer YR "troublemakers"? I do not know why the new members would be so hateful ."
No, I said no such thing. You're trying to put words into my mouth/keyboard.
I didn't say what group of teachers could be labelled troublemakers by their principals. Depending upon the principal, it could be the YR supporters, or the traditional supporters, or (I hope this would be the majority) neither of the above, with principals who would respect the rights of staff to express their honest opinions.
Again, where did the "hateful new members" issue come from? This assumption that the new board members would be searching the results of thousands of staff members and carrying out some personal vendetta based upon their responses goes beyond farfetched; it's ludicrous.
So are teachers who prefer
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 12:39 — jenmanSo are teachers who prefer YR "troublemakers"? I
do not know why the new members would be so hateful ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apexter said no such thing, nor do I think that s/he was insinuating such. Like at any other workplace, teachers are often afraid to voice their true opinions for fear of ticking off their bosses--the prinicpal. I also agree with Apexter that the board doesn't keep track of individual teachers and their viewpoints.
" just sayin' "
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 13:06 — louiselee44"Like at any other workplace, teachers are often afraid to voice their true opinions for fear of ticking off their bosses--the prinicpal."
As a former teacher, I can vouch for the fact that this is definitely the case most of the time. It's a real travesty, but has been that way as long as I can remember.
Also, the NCASA (NC Association of School Administrators), headed up by none other than our former superintendent, Bill McNeal, let's just say "strongly encourages" administrators to pass certain information, etc. on to their faculty members. The NCASA is very active politically, and of course, like any group of this sort, has its "pet" agenda items that it strongly pushes. In the words of other bloggers, "just sayin."
The principal at our base
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 09:46 — SouthEastWakeMomThe principal at our base elementary school (one of the 22) is very vocal about preferring year round. If I was a teacher there, I'd be more than a little concerned about voicing any dislike of the year round schedule.
Just look at how
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 09:33 — changewcpssJust look at how unprofessionally that Leesville Road principal acted and overreacted to the survey. She went to far and it looks like anyone who dares to speak out now can kiss their good standing at her school goodbye.
Just a thought
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 09:48 — choice4allCould it be possible that the principal did not type the letter? It would not be the first time that PTA handles a job like this.In fact they do it all the time. Seems like the Principal would have better things to do than to type a Friday newsletter with emphasis printed in Bold type. Possible the twist of words was not really how she dictated it? I'm just saying.
And besides the Robo call was an apologiy to clear things up. Whats the Principal going to say "Thats not how I dictated it..someone else typed it up and those were not my exact words". Again. I'm just sayin.
PTA Overstepped
Tue, 02/09/2010 - 01:11 — WCTeachrAre you guessing or did you get this from someone on staff? You are exactly right.
...
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 10:42 — SideburnsMaria Mauriello is the VP of Communications for LRES.
http://les.wcpss.net/pta.html
She is also a member of BiggerPicture4Wake.
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/calendar-changes-for-leesville-schools
Just sayin'.
The Culprit
Tue, 02/09/2010 - 01:08 — WCTeachrOur principal did not write and boldly format that entry in the newsletter, but she did make the apology. It is cowardly of that biased PTA board member to stand back and not take the blame herself. When she and her friends leave for Sycamore Creek their shenanigans will not be missed. While Chapman tells us to feel free to express opinions, it has become increasingly obvious that she is extremely in favor of YR. Just having us sign a sheet enabling us to place a ballot in the staff box encouraged many staff members to vote for YR when they really prefer the old traditional calendar. Many do fear retaliation for being honest. Mark my words, changing LRES back to the traditional calendar is the best thing that could happen after all we have been through. With the exception of a few newer and younger teachers, losing staff will not be a concern. We are here for the school first and foremost, and it is our home too. There will likely not be a need for all current staff post-conversion, so some attrition will not hurt. I have said more than I should, but in all fairness to Mrs. Chapman the record needed to be set straight.
wow
Tue, 02/09/2010 - 09:41 — loriacAll I can say is, wow. It continues to be true - the happiest people I meet are those who have somehow escaped WCPSS. (either thru graduation, charter, private, HS, whatever) A big thank you to those who have worked so long on this, without shenanigans.
thank you!
Tue, 02/09/2010 - 08:53 — louiselee44Bless you for your boldness and honesty!
Poor taste
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 10:58 — supportwcpssThat was in poor taste. Shall we pull off the list of Wake Cares supports as well as the WSCA leaders and list all their roles within the school system.
I think that is a great idea for full disclosure.
Poor taste would be writing
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 13:38 — changewcpssPoor taste would be writing a blurb for inclusion in the Principal newsletter and allowing her to take the heat for it. All I have heard about that small disfunctional group calling themeselves Bigger Picture shows that they are not only out of touch with the real issues, they are attention mongers so they will probably love that shout out. Lump that trio with Rev Barber, C Wright and Rev Petty. Big mouths no substance and no desire to help.
Wow
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 15:31 — supportwcpssLumping some parents who disagree with you and Rev Barber is just uncalled for.
But we can expect that from you.
I don't know if they
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 16:02 — changewcpssI don't know if they disagree with me or not; I don't know what they think. Considering how they have conducted themselves they don't seem to know either. Have you asked them what they actually stand for?
I see them clamoring for attention by latching onto the latest attention getting cause. At one point they were even seeking attention by jumping onto C Wright's bandwagon. I see them using their organization name and then mumbling jibberish for 3 minutes to the BoE and not even making one coherent point. That is where the similarity with the other attention mongers lies. No concern for a solution; just making noise and looking for attention.
...
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 12:09 — SideburnsSure. Can we include your roles on that disclosure?
I am proud to say I serve on District 8's BAC -- but I think I've already disclosed that. And since I'm no longer part of WSCA, maybe that's not even relevant to the discussion.
Now isn't that
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 10:48 — changewcpssNow isn't that interesting. The plot thickens. Leesville Road can do without the LittlePicture4Wake wannabees. Their Queen Bee P Head has left the building. Time for that trio to find another fish to fry.
Teachers are not willing to
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 01:14 — changewcpssTeachers are not willing to risk their jobs by being honest. Several teachers told me to read the online comments to see how scared they all are. It was eye opening. *I love working for WCPSS so I don't care* and *I enjoy teaching so much that I am happy no matter what I am told to do*. Say what your boss needs to hear from you in order to keep your job.
teacher id numbers on survey
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 01:12 — momsateacherIf I may, I'd like to say that I believe that the point the prior posting was trying to make was this: the survey was presented to the teachers as a way to anonymously express views and opinions, but since an ID number was required, teachers questioned whether or not the survey could truly be called "anonymous". I emailed my concerns to all board members; Goldman and Prickett responded. Prickett took it a step further and pursued the question of teacher anonymity with central office. Here is the reply I received: <<Dear Ms. Prickett: I have carefully read the email thread and am glad to have the opportunity to respond to the teacher's concern. She is quite right that it would theoretically be possible to associate an ID number, a name, and a survey submission. However, that is not how we have proceeded. Rather, we requested a list of valid ID numbers from HR. These numbers were then compared to the numbers used as the survey entry procedure. Once we had determined that the submissions were valid, we discarded the numbers, and began analyzing the data.
One of the issues around a survey of this type is insuring that only legitimate participants are able to submit survey responses. We originally had planned to make the survey accessible only on the district intranet, which is available only to district employees. However, this procedure would have prevented Track 3 teachers from participating (since they are tracked out). Therefore, in essence, we also needed to provide instructions for principals about how to notify these teachers that the survey was available on both the intranet and the internet. In order to maintain security, we also requested that the employee ID be used.
While I appreciate the concern expressed by this teacher, I know of no other way to ensure the validity of participation in a survey of this importance. Please let me know if there are other questions that I may answer. Cordially, David Holdzkom>>
I can see both sides.
Sat, 02/06/2010 - 23:24 — ApexterI've spoken at Board meetings in the past, and did not mind announcing my name and address. However, the last time I was able to do this was a couple of years ago. Since then, they have begun broadcasting the meetings (which I think is a tremendous public service by local TV stations, and I appreciate it very much.)
Back before the meetings were broadcast, there was a much smaller audience, and I never thought twice about announcing my address. However, now that the meetings are broadcast live and archived for later viewing, speakers are now stating their addresses in front of a much larger audience and could indeed be opening themselves up to stalking. (I'll come clean here; I'll admit to jotting down the address of one speaker and doing a search to see what their base schools were. As I suspected, they had magnet schools --- or former magnet schools --- as base at all 3 levels. That's as far as I would ever plan to take this. I could see someone else using this opportunity to look up phone numbers, though, which could lead to harassing phone calls.)
I think it's appropriate for the board members to know the names and addresses, so I think that having this information on the sign-in sheet should be continued. I would support having the speaker have the option of either stating their name and address, OR their name, municipality, and board district. Some folks would not know their board districts, however, so perhaps schools that their kids attend could be used instead.
And I think that it's very ironic that the "civil liberties union" feels it has the right to correspondence from personal e-mail accounts. What's next? Do they get to tap their phones, too?
I do agree, you have a point...... BUT
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 09:15 — Voice_of_Reason_I agree with your solutions and understand your concerns. But in today's day and age I could do a simple Google search and get the rest of the info for most people. If I want to be nosey I could look at your house, see how much taxes you pay, if you are current at paying taxes, look at your voting affiliation (and record) and see if you have made the news in the past. A slightly more nosey individual could pay a small fee and look up criminal history and do an abbreviated credit check. And if you have a Facebook page, watch out. All that being said, I think just providing the information in writing to the board before speaking and mentioning your name and school affiliation(s) when speaking would be sufficient to a televised audience and the record could include the sign up list with other details. If you want to give more info, that could be your option. Of course, some people even with uncommon names are still subject to microscopic scrutiny. That is the cost of going public with your beliefs, it is also why blogs often seem to have the best unfiltered discussions.
Oh, absolutely. Just the
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 11:19 — ApexterOh, absolutely. Just the name alone is enough to allow a determined stalker to find out an incredible amount of information to make someone's life miserable. But providing name and address opens up the door to a greater number of "casual stalkers" who otherwise wouldn't be motivated to take any additional steps.
great
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 12:05 — loriacI will NEVER submit a comment on the WCPSS website again. These are considered public records, and apparently they felt the need to publish the YR survey comments, along w/ all identifying information.
From Michael Evans:
On the WCPSS website, we did disclose to the public that:
Please keep in mind that comments submitted become part of the public record. Regardless of whether we disclosed or not, the fact that they submitted comments via a publicly funded website, communicating with elected officials, then came under the direction of GS 132.
There's a comment form up right now for people to comment on the CEM meetings. Wonder if they will publish those comments, like the YR survey comments.
Keung - has WCPSS previously published comments received from the public on their website?
I'm on the same page as you, Loriac!
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 12:44 — ncarolinagirlThey also published parent comments after promising, "All answers will be kept confidential by the WCPSS Evaluation and Research Department, and your individual responses will not be shared with your child's school or anyone else." I don't care what the law is regarding the public statutes Mr. Evans recites. A promise is a promise, and WCPSS committed a major breech of trust when they published these comments on a public web site. They may claim they're anonymous because they removed names and identifying information from them. However, some parent comments include their children's first names, names of their schools, and their track assignments. With that amount of detail, many identities could be figured out by others who are in their communities, other parents from their children's schools, and the principals/teachers at their children's schools. Parents were comfortable giving this amount of detail because they were promised confidentiality. Now that they know any comments they make will be posted on a public web site for the whole world to see, how many of them will participate in future surveys? WCPSS shot itself in the foot here.
.
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 17:42 — Voice_of_Reason_.
You can release public record w/o this
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 17:45 — Voice_of_Reason_I know the federal government has three laws concerning public documents, The Privacy Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and National Security secrecy laws when it comes to official record requests. Names are often redacted when documents are released. I don't know why the state or local government needs to provide more. Personally it scares me that local government has voter rolls with party affiliation are posted on the Internet given these times. I think a law suit on the survey has a far greater chance of winning and the WCPSS official that authorized release of it should be reprimanded. Even if the law says it must be released, that implies the information should be requested, not freely available for all to see.
The Cary Town Council asks
Sat, 02/06/2010 - 18:40 — CaryiteThe Cary Town Council asks speakers to state their name. Your address is not required to be stated although many speakers still do. I don't say my address when speaking before the CTC. Sometimes I've said that I am a resident of Cary, but usually not even that. They have you fill out a card with your name, address, phone number and e-mail address before speaking. The council and staff can use that info to contact you for follow-up, which they have done.
ALL OF THIS is like a 3 ring
Sat, 02/06/2010 - 12:28 — aquaman4life68ALL OF THIS is like a 3 ring circus...NOTHING is being done to actually help the students and teachers. NO WONDER we loose student interest over time and we struggle to attract and retain teachers. The teachers we do have (LUCKILY)...sure look like they've carried a heavy load on their backs the past few years.
Amen!
Sat, 02/06/2010 - 13:40 — louiselee44Comments made at the bottom
Sat, 02/06/2010 - 11:50 — changewcpssComments made at the bottom of surveys are already reported anonymously from what I can see.
I did not respond to the general comments link so I am not sure what was said to those who didn't have NCWise number for surveys. That is separate from surveys where we were assured our answers were confidential.
Board deserves to know who is speaking to them. This ACLU
group is ridiculous.
"Find a cure to irony, make
Sat, 02/06/2010 - 11:13 — WhalerCane"Find a cure to irony, make a fool out of God."
Anonymity okay for this board, but not that one. :-)
Giving Names In Public Meetings Is Okay
Sat, 02/06/2010 - 11:46 — RMC10But, having the information beyond names to include addresses, phone numbers and e-mail address moved out of the "privacy" of a meeting and published would be a violation of public trust and a violation of privacy. Heck, that's why we all "post" on blogs and websites using aliases. Unless all 884 of these folks signed a waiver (such as people have to do when appearing on television), I believe they are owed the removal of their personal information, and that WCPSS should remove that component until the data is cleaned. Keeping this information public opens these citizens up to a spamming, junk mail, charities and advocacy group, and telemarketers blitz. Not to mention people with opposing viewpoints can personally contact these people and harrass them. WCPSS needs to admit this is the wrong, and just correct it, remove it from this report - it doesn't need to be a legal case - just a moral responsibility.
John Tedesco responded to my request
Sat, 02/06/2010 - 12:20 — loriacI sent the BOE a note asking to remove my personal information from the website (the general comments). John Tedesco just responded that he would ask Michael Evans (who runs the website) to correct this.
Free speech has limits
Sat, 02/06/2010 - 10:13 — Voice_of_Reason_Anyone has the right to speak, however the venue has the right to regulate it. Try to start speaking out in a courtroom and see how the judge applies the second ammendment. The speaking of names and addresses in a public meeting is warranted. Because of the nature of the board, it is proper to establish that the people speaking are trully impacted by the governance of the board. I don't think anyone wants a free for all in public meetings and it is important that identity of speakers are recorded for the record. Public is just that, PUBLIC; you speak on the record. I don't know why the ACLU needs to be involved unless it is a motive other than civil liberties. I think the ALCLU is trying to bully to achieve an agenda's goals. The problem is we have to pay in legal fees.
While some of theses bodies
Sat, 02/06/2010 - 10:12 — shank56While some of theses bodies may not be consistent, I also have heard the County Commission and City Council ask for name and address of those that speak at public hearings. It does help the elected officials id whom might live in their election district and provided a record in the minutes of how to contact them for follow up. Same for the BOE.
Keung, I disagree with your assumption
Sat, 02/06/2010 - 09:17 — festusThat the ACLU "is more likely to be in sympathy with those speakers [Board critics]."
The ACLU famously defended klansmen and neo nazis in their right to publicly protest. The organization is not partisan. It steps up to defend Constitutional rights, especially first amendment rights, when no one else will.
Personally I think the ACLU will lose this one. And I don't mind the requirement. I think it gives gravitas to the speakers: We live here, we care.
Give me a break
Sat, 02/06/2010 - 10:46 — Voice_of_Reason_The ACLU may occasionally take cases like that for PR purposes, but they distort the Constitution more than they defend it. Personally I think the ALCU has done far more harm to this country than good. There are always exceptions that you can point your finger to. The exceptions you point out support my view of harm, IMHO.
Got it. Free speech--but only for those you agree with.
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 13:15 — festusI think you make yourself crystal clear. You want free speech for those
you agree with, but not for opposing views.
Which is why we have a Constitutional right to free speech--to make sure
EVERYONE has a voice.
And that is what the ACLU works so hard to ensure.
So...
Sat, 02/06/2010 - 08:29 — Bob_SconceThe board can adopt "reasonable rules governing the conduct of the public comment period." Requiring each speaker to state their name and address allows the school board members to know who they are talking with and helps board members know, at the time the speaker is speaking, whether the speaker is a county resident.
Information prior to Dec 1st isn't a "Public Record," (The board members were not public officials until 12/1 -- See G.S. 132-1) so they shouldn't get that.
Isn't it funny that she doesn't want people to have to say their names at a school board meeting, but she herself, wants to know everybody who's communicated with a school board member? I guess privacy isn't important when it's the ACLU getting the information. I wonder how many people thought their emails to their board member would end up at the ACLU?