ATHOL — The Athol-Royalston Regional School Committee asked committee attorney Fred Dupere to look at possibly re-wording portions of the panel’s public participation policy, at its meeting last Wednesday. The move comes in the wake of a parent raising concerns about the World Cultures class at the committee’s February meeting, even though a discussion of the class was not on the meeting agenda. Paragraph 3 of the policy states: “Topics for discussion must be limited to those items listed on the school committee meeting agenda…”
The committee also wanted to ensure its policy adequately ensured the rights of those who wish to speak during a meeting’s public comment period. In June of last year, the Middlesex Superior Court ruled that portions of the Natick School Committee policy on “public speak” violated the right to free speech. In November, the same court further ruled the committee had violated the free speech provisions of the state Constitution when its chairman silenced two women who had attempted to speak at one of its meetings.
The policy of the Athol-Royalston School Committee was adopted in March of 1998, according to Dupere.
Committee Chair Deborah Kuzmeskas said, “Somewhere along the line the lines got blurred because it was decided that people were simply allowed to speak, and that’s not the case in the policy. That’s just something that’s been going on as long as I can remember and that’s just not correct. Obviously, it’s not correct and it will not happen again, unless the policy is changed.”
Committee member Lee Chauvette noted that he had asked Dupere to take a look at the current policy following the board’s February meeting.
“The rights of the public to participate in public school committee meetings,” said Chauvette, “has greatly advanced since the writing of our policy. I told Fred that I thought some of our wording was inconsistent with what Fred said, because Fred said the committee can’t legally interrupt or interfere…with somebody who is speaking at a school committee meeting.”
Chauvette said Dupere had informed him that paragraph 3 of the policy limiting public comment topics to those items on a meeting agenda “is an appropriate restriction that can be enforced by the school committee.”
Chauvette went to say that paragraphs 4 and 6 of the policy may be problematic in light of the court’s rulings in the Natick case.
Paragraph 4 states the chairman may interrupt someone during public comment if their remarks are improper, defamatory, or abusive. Paragraph 6 states: “…in public session the committee will not hear personal complaints of school personnel nor against any member of the school community.”
“The problem here,” said Dupere, “is how do you determine what is an improper comment or conduct or remark. And who determines whether something, objectively, is a criticism that needs to be cut. What the court said in the Natick case is that a school committee meeting cannot silence a speaker solely on the basis of his or her viewpoint, and that the grounds for silencing is for a fear of disruption; that the school committee can ensure orderly conduct.”
“So,” he continued, “probably the language in 4 and 6 can still be there but it has to be reworded so it is clear as far as the circumstance by which speech will be stopped. Numbers 4 and 6 should be modified to be more consistent with the court’s decision.”
The committee ultimately instructed Dupere to move ahead with composing those modifications.