Do speakers at Wake County school board meetings have the right to make personal attacks against board members or anyone else?
The school board is set to give initial approval Tuesday to a new policy that sets guidelines on what speakers can say. Several civil rights groups sent a letter today objecting to language in the policy that says "speakers are required to refrain from personal attacks and insults directed at the Board, staff, or other members of the public."
"Comments that go directly to an elected school board members' job performance are protected speech - not personal attacks..." according to the letter. "The new policy prohibiting 'personal attacks' will likely result in impermissible viewpoint discrimination."
The groups argue that the school board can deal with disruptive behavior at board meetings without including this new language against making personal attacks.
The letter was signed by the ACLU of North Carolina, Legal Aid of North Carolina, the N.C. Justice Center, the state NAACP, the Southern Coalition for Social Justice and the UNC Center for Civil Rights.
Several of the groups that signed the letter have criticized the new school board majority's plans to end busing for socioeconomic diversity. The school board is also set Tuesday to give initial approval to a revised student assignment policy that makes neighborhood schools a priority while no longer calling for socioeconomic diversity.
Anger about eliminating busing for diversity has led to tense moments at recent board meetings.
At a March board meeting, the Rev. Curtis Gatewood, second vice president of the NAACP, called school board chairman Ron Margiotta a "white racist" and said he was going to hell.
At the last board meeting, local activist Chase Foster called school board member John Tedesco a "right-wing extremist" for speaking at the April 15 Tea Party rally. He accused Tedesco of "seeking fame off the backs and lives of Wake County’s 140,000 students."
UPDATE
Click here for the proposed public participation policy.
Comments
These politicians wanted the job...
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 14:09 — hmoncelleHarry_Moncelle These folks ran for office on their on volition. They sought out, organized, and campaigned for their seat at the big table. Now, it appears they can't stand the heat! I thought these republicans were in favor of Free Speech! The more I experience the actions of the new board majority I am reminded of a quote out of the Midwest “In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then he made School Boards…..Mark Twain
Harry, I agree that the
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 15:36 — CaryCurmudgeonHarry,
I agree that the board should try to give every speaker the chance to discuss matters related to the education of our children.
But I draw the line at personal attacks. Gatewood calling Margiotta a racist was out of bounds. So was last meeting's rant by that nutjob who called John "Palin-esque," "self-aggrandizing," and several other names. Both Gatewood and the nutjob were applauded by the pro-busing crowd.
To me, freedom of speech means freedom to waste citizens' and the school board's time. These personal attacks have nothing to do with board policy, they are personal opinions directed at individual members. If you want to attack board decisions or policies, that is fine and well within the bounds of conducting the people's business. Attack the policy, not the person.
LIMITING NUMBER OF SPEAKERS
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 09:44 — askmisterbrownThe proposed changes to board policy on the public comment period will change one word in this provision regarding the thirty-minute public comment period:
"Any speakers remaining at the end of the thirty-minute period will be recognized at the conclusion of the board's business agenda."
The "will" will be replaced by "may." A few meetings ago, Margiotta tried to dismiss the speakers at the end of the meeting, but a citizen shouted that they had signed up, had been waiting for many hours, and had a right to speak. Margiotta let them speak. But with this change, he won't have to let them speak next time.
The public can't say much in 30 minutes!! That's the goal, of course. So much for the campaign promise to listen to people.
To be fair, this change
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 10:20 — KeungHui (author)To be fair, this change arguably will allow more people to speak. While there's nothing currently in official board policy, they've carried over the old board practice of saying that after 30 minutes of speakers, public comments will be heard at the end of the meeting. By changing the word will to may and making it part of board policy, you can argue they're allowing more people to speak without waiting until the end of the meeting.
Under the current policy,
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 11:54 — askmisterbrownUnder the current policy, all who sign up are granted the right to speak, either in the 30-minute comment period, or at the end of the meeting. Under the new wording, that right will no longer be granted. Instead, the board MAY recognize remaining speakers at the end of the meeting. Look at the exact language of the new policy: The entire provision regarding whether to allow speakers to speak at the end only applies if the board does NOT extend the 30-minute public comment period.
So...
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 12:28 — Bob_SconceWhich current policy are you talking about? The policy being proposed is brand-new. It's been practice to accommodate people at the end of the meeting, but I don't see anywhere in policy that this is required. The "may" language seems perfectly consistent with current practice.
The current policy is found
Tue, 05/04/2010 - 08:56 — askmisterbrownThe current policy is found on the WCPSS web site: click Board of Education, click Rules for Speakers at Public Hearings. It says "All speakers WILL be heard in order of sign-up starting at 4:00." The board page itself states "Each individual speaker WILL be allowed two minutes for remarks. . . . After 30 minutes of public comment, any speakers remaining WILL be recognized at the end of the agenda for their comments. " [emphasis added]
ot - news item
Sat, 05/01/2010 - 22:25 — red_balloonFrom a major news website:
At a town hall meeting in Bayou La Batre, Alabama, Mayor Stan Wright warned fishermen in the audience that outbursts would be met with arrest. The fishermen were told that they were not allowed to ask questions.
does it count
Sun, 05/02/2010 - 22:04 — mom2teenswhen the board chair calls anyone who disagrees with him (and there are A LOT of us!) 'animals'? Yes, let's apply the same rule!
Pfft...
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 09:02 — Bob_SconceWhy do you assume that the "Animal" reference was to you? As I saw it, he was referring to a bunch of people who were acting (metaphorically) like animals. Were you acting like an animal? Do you intend to act like an animal?
Who in their right mind says "That guy just called some people animals. He must have been referring to me"?
To those of us that weren't
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 14:56 — carson79To those of us that weren't there, but watched on the feed, the *only* person we saw acting in this way may have been Curtis Gatewood or Dallas Woodhouse. I did not see anyone else acting to what would even come close to "animals" description being accurate - and it was definitely not appropriate.
I'm thinking aloud hear...based on what you've said, it would be ok for me to call the board members descriptive terms if this is true? Fat? Unattractive? Smelly? These would be considered attacks in my book, but they may in fact be true, doesn't make it ok to say them. Same reasoning should apply to Margiotta's comments I think...
Actions Speak Louder Than Words....
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 08:05 — JanisTangoI don't agree with what Mr. Margiotta said, but the behavior in the crowd was awful! The people that acted that way should be ashamed!
Were you there? The video
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 14:59 — carson79Were you there?
The video is on the internet - there is a youtube video I hope everyone has seen of Margiotta referring to the crowd as "animals." I watched it and didn't see any "awful" behavior - nothing different than what I've seen at previous assignment meetings where it was your side doing the complaining, clapping, booing, cheering, namecalling, etc etc.
Not only that, BUT...
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 18:24 — duvalDid you ever watch parliamentary proceedings in other countries? Japan, for instance. Or the English Parliament, perhaps!?!
Calling people who are agitated by the proceedings that are clearly biased and not open to opinions other than their own "animals coming out of their cages" was not appropriate for the leader of our childrens school system and of our community.
Great Idea!
Sun, 05/02/2010 - 09:46 — g88ky07!
entertainment, if not education
Fri, 04/30/2010 - 21:07 — red_balloonI most vehemently oppose any curtailment of the entertainment value. The comic interlude afforded by the deranged presentations has no rival for that hour. I am glad Margiotta allowed Foster, Gatewood, etc. to exercise their constitutional rights.
So...
Fri, 04/30/2010 - 16:01 — Bob_SconceIf I recall my first amendment law, the school board would do much better saying "These are the things you CAN talk about . . . " instead of saying "These are the things you cannot talk about . . ." And then it should just make sure that personal attacks are not in the list of permitted topics.
At a March board meeting,
Fri, 04/30/2010 - 15:17 — carson79At a March board meeting, the Rev. Curtis Gatewood, second vice president of the NAACP, called school board chairman Ron Margiotta a "white racist" and said he was going to hell.
He didn't actually call him a racist, correct? Didn't he say something like, "if you are trying to resegregate the schools, you are a white racist"? You should clarify because the topic is so inflammatory.
He said white racist more
Fri, 04/30/2010 - 15:26 — KeungHui (author)He said white racist more than a few times when Margiotta gavelled him.