Should school board meetings be ‘free-speech zones’? Wake mulls public comment rules.

The Wake County school system will stop limiting the number of speakers at school board meetings but may impose new rules on public comment.

Tuesday’sschool board meeting will see a return to pre-COVID rules, when no limits were set on the number of speakers. For more than two years, Wake had cited pandemic health concerns in limiting the number of public speakers to 20 per meeting.

But some school board members say Wake should consider putting new rules in place because they feel speakers are no longer discussing issues related to the school system.

“I think the podium here is to address the board with issues — and it’s broadly defined — but issues related to education and issues to be addressed to the board,” board member Jim Martin said at the Nov. 29 policy committee meeting. “So if you’ve got some just random issue that you want to present, this isn’t the place to do it.

“I would think that there ought to be some ways to put some bounds so it just is not a complete open free-speech zone.”

School board chairwoman Lindsay Mahaffey said she’ll take up the concerns raised about public comment with the new board. Five new members will be sworn into office Tuesday to join the four returning board members.

Potential new restrictions were panned by critics of the board, who were unsuccessful in flipping Wake to a conservative majority.

“Dear Wake County Parents, Jim Martin doesn’t like you and he doesn’t want to hear from you. Enough of the word salad!” Kelly Mann, the John Locke Foundation’s grassroots director, tweeted after the board discussion.

Speakers driving people away?

For the past two years, school board critics have spoken out during public comment on issues such as opposing face mask requirements and urging people not to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

Some of the most intense comments have come from people accusing Wake of promoting an LGBTQ agenda by allowing books in school libraries that contain scenes with same-sex couples. Speakers have made statements such as “transgender filth” and “grooming children to be the next pervert.”

In a sign of incivility, an audience member called a speaker a “pervert” for urging Wake to continue to have a diverse selection of books in school libraries. The speaker responded by saying a curse word, resulting in the meeting being paused.

Board member Roxie Cash said the “atmosphere” that was present during public comments caused people like PTA members to stop listening or coming to board meetings. She said they no longer felt that it was a good use of their time.

“Most of our constituency want to hear about things in front of the board right now, and they don’t want to hear the same thing over and over again,” Cash, who is departing the board, said. “I feel like I lost a lot of my constituency listening to board meetings that they used to. Principals, teachers, people like that.”

‘Limited public forum’

Martin, whose term is also ending, said public comment at board meetings should not be treated like “an anything-goes free speech zone” you’d find at a university.

“We don’t want to restrict free speech, but I don’t believe that the public comment podium is a free-speech zone in the same way that the Brickyard or the Free Expression Tunnel is at N.C. State,” said Martin, a chemistry professor at N.C. State.

Martin also asked about putting limits on political candidates using the podium at board meetings. Several school board candidates regularly spoke at board meetings to promote their campaigns.

“There is a difference between campaigning and working on issues in a democratic system,” Martin said. “I think there would be some wisdom in putting some bounds around the political activity, just like we don’t allow campaign signs in a classroom unless it’s some educational related thing.”

School board attorney Jonathan Blumberg said that under the law school board meetings are considered a “limited public forum.” He said this means the board can place content-neutral restrictions such as saying comments need to relate to the school system or public education or matters related to what the board has jurisdiction on.

Ending written comments

One of the results of returning to pre-COVID meeting rules is that Wake is ending the practice of accepting written and video comments. Those were options when the number of in-person speakers was capped.

Several board members asked about at least keeping the written comments for people who don’t feel comfortable speaking in public.

Blumberg said the written and video comments had to be reviewed by staff and legal counsel to make sure that they weren’t defamatory or discussed confidential student or personnel information. Those same restrictions apply to people who make in-person comments.

“We had to make fairly quick decisions and were always really wanting to avoid being in a situation where we were repressing speech in any way but had many, many judgment calls with each one of those,” Blumberg said.

Martin suggested the board consider keeping the 20-speaker cap and allowing written comments from people who didn’t win a lottery for a speaking slot.

Responding to speakers

Another suggested change was revising the rule that says the board doesn’t respond to the comments made by speakers.

“The lesson that we all gravely learned the hard way was it does not help us to sit here and blankly stare at people when the public deserves a response from us whether we agree with it, whether it’s correct or incorrect,” said board member Monika Johnson-Hostler.

Board member Karen Carter, whose term is ending, said not responding comes across as meaning that what speakers are saying is true. She said this leads to false information being spread at meetings.

Board member Christine Kushner, whose term is ending, suggested changing the order of board meetings to have public comments come before board member comments. This way she said board members can decide to respond to any speakers.

Mahaffey, the board chair, had requested the policy committee’s discussion on the public participation policy.

“I loved some of the suggestions that were made, people’s feelings on different things and then we’ll work with the next policy chair to bring this to a future meeting of the new board, perhaps with some of what we heard today in there,” Mahaffey said.