The Hartford Board of Education has had its sights on altering the policy concerning the “Public Comment” section of their monthly Regular meetings since October.  As the piece, “Hartford Public Schools Cannot Hear You” stated in the November 3rd issue of the Hartford News, the Board aims to split agenda related comments and non-agenda related comments, assigning the agenda related comments to the early part of the night’s proceedings, while giving non-agenda related comments the back-of-the-bus treatment. 

During the Board’s Policy Committee meeting on February 6 (Committee Members Escribano and Shmerling were absent), the “Public Comment” policy change was on the nights menu, to be roasted, skewered, and fed to the public without wine (live comments from the public during the live committee meeting is not allowed).   

Hoping to dispense with the five items on the morning’s agenda, and with visions of Denny’s “All-American Slam” breakfast dancing in their heads, there was no doubt dismay among some Board members dutifully attending the meeting, as member’s Shonta Browdy and Tyrone Walker kept this policy over the fire to be cooked some more.

However, before the debate began, it was mentioned that going forward, the “Public Comment” portion of the meeting’s agenda, would no longer be referred to as the “Dialog” portion of the meeting.  This aligns nicely with a phrase used by Board Chairman Rigueur later in the meeting while disrespecting a fellow board member: “words have meaning.”  This change mimics reality as there is no dialog taking place at these meetings between the Board and the public.

There are (for the Board members) two prongs to this debate.  The first, why split the “Public Comment” portion of the agenda in the first place, and second, what length of time ought to be allotted for each portion of the diced-up “Public Comment.” 

Mr. Walker stated that the public has one chance each month to speak to the Board, and setting the early portion of the meeting to agenda-only comments when the public does not always have access to the agenda prior to the meeting, is problematic.

Board Chairman Rigueur, mixing into his defense of the policy change with unprofessional and disrespectful laughs at the comments made by a fellow Board member, Mr. Walker, stated that the “spirit” of the change is an “engagement issue.”  Aside from wanting to also reserve a portion of the “Public Comment” section for students and parents (are they allowed to speak on non-agenda issues?), the Board is concerned with folks speaking early and then leaving the meeting, not having had the glorious opportunity to see the Board approve all business contracts placed in front of them. 

Somehow, Mr. Rigueur, aside from thinking that the public viewing of contract approvals are methods of engaging the public, also senses this policy change will keep the early, agenda-only speakers around for the meat of the meeting once they have finished speaking.  Or, perhaps, knowing that most people are clueless as to the agenda, due to the Board and district’s inability to properly advertise and give public notice of any Board meeting, Mr. Rigueur assumes the bulk of speakers will be of the non-agenda type, and they will come in early and sit through all those “Aye” votes, while waiting for the non-agenda “Public Comment” section to arrive and serve them their just desserts. 

Let’s be clear, in the later scenario, you will see Board members suddenly leave the meeting as the business portion is completed…sticking you with the check.  In an article published by Popular Government magazine, it was stated that “holding citizens’ comments until the end of the meeting taxes people’s patience and delays their speaking to a time when many board members are weary and eager to conclude the meeting.”

Chairman Rigueur also defended the policy with reasoning that holds less water than a paper towel.  Mr. Rigueur stated that he is concerned about the structure of the meeting. The only breakdown of “structure” which I have witnessed at the Regular Meeting, is when the Chairman himself broke the structure of an ongoing meeting during a vote to extend the Superintendent’s contract.  Mr. Rigueur took a moment during the proceeding to publicly castigate speakers for questioning the agenda of politically appointed Board members, to whom the Chair issued the sage-like phrase, “elections have consequences.”  If anything, this policy works against a smooth flowing “structure,” as public folks will speak up front, then we’ll hear some “Aye” votes and rhetoric from the Superintendent, then the public will be allowed to speak again.

Board Member Browdy brought up the dark side of the whole issue.  Ms. Browdy wondered if someone was speaking during the agenda-only portion of the meeting, but was not speaking to an agenda item, will the Board swoop down like a member of the Politburo and haul them off to a Gulag?  Ms. Browdy also stated that folks will say they are going to speak on an agenda item, just so that they can get their comment in early and not have to wait for the non-agenda portion of the night’s festivities. For real, people would do that?  Mr. Rigueur assured Ms. Browdy that all speakers will be vetted “up front.” Will the Board ask for written proof of what someone plans to speak on?  A sworn affidavit?

The second prong of the “Public Comment” debate, deals with how much time ought to be allotted for the agenda-only speakers, and the non-agenda speakers.  While the Board appears to be united in the thought that most speakers are respectful of their allotted 3-minute speaking limit, there was a concern that someday, more than 5 people will actually show up to speak; “we can’t stay here until 9 at night,” was a mentioned concern.

Board Member A.J. Johnson suggested, while admitting that it may just be a “bad idea,” that if there was an unusual amount of people looking to speak, would the Board consider moving business items to the consent agenda.  The consent agenda is, normally, reserved for items which require a vote but are considered undisputed and require no discussion or debate.  Several are placed on the consent agenda and the entire agenda is approved on a single vote.  This is admitting that when items are brought before the Board’s Regular Committee for approval, it is a done deal, and the ensuing discussion before their approval is just a dog and pony show to give the appearance of a diligent board.

Will those speaking on an agenda item be given a 60-minute block, and the non-agenda folks given a 30-minute block?  Mr. Walker stated that a non-agenda-based comment ought not to be given less value than an agenda-based comment.  After all, the district is all about equity, right?  Board Members Francois Deristel-Ledger, Walker, and Browdy, all agreed that time limits are problematic, “everyone should be heard” was the consensus of the three. 

There is a third prong to this debate which members of the Board are not addressing.  In the past few years, issues such as COVID-19 precautions, equity for LGBTQ students, book banning, and learning model criticisms have produced emotional, inflammatory, and overheated debates at public school board meetings.

In response, school boards have often overestimated their power and have taken actions or implemented policies which run afoul of Constitutional protections.  School Boards “with low tolerance for disagreeable speech are pushing- and sometimes crossing- constitutional boundaries in managing citizen speech,” leading to ejections and arrests.  In the article, “School Boards Are Limiting Public Comment.  Will That Erode the Public’s Trust,” Education Week hit upon a few instances of board’s behaving badly.

In November 2021, the Brevard County School Board in Florida was hit with a federal lawsuit for a violation of First Amendment rights, as it was claimed they “interrupt, silence, and even expel speakers they find disagreeable…”  In July 2022 in Maine, a federal judge ruled the school board for Regional School Unit 22, had violated an activist’s free-speech rights when it prohibited him from speaking at meetings due to his previous abusive behavior.  This case shows that even limitations on “defamatory comments” or incivility have been difficult to legally enforce.  In another story, in 2021 the Jefferson Parish, LA. School Board eliminated any comment which is not tied to the board’s agenda.

At Hartford’s January 17th Budget Meeting, Chairman Rigueur stated that during the “Public Comment” section of the meeting, only those comments which are budget related would be allowed.  This was wrong on its face as this was the regularly scheduled monthly public meeting, disguised as the required “public hearing” on the budget.  So, in this instance, the pubic was screwed out of their January Regular Board Meeting, and the opportunity to comment on other matters. 

As to this action, the Education Week article included information stating that “some boards have also voted to limit comments to specific agenda items, though various state laws and courts may differ on whether such limitations are permissible.”  Scholars at Duke University agree: “in a traditional public forum, any restriction on speech that is based on content or viewpoint will be strictly scrutinized by the courts and will almost always be found unconstitutional.”

Chairman Rigueur begins all Regular Meetings telling everyone to be nice and not to direct criticism at any individual.  However, there have been court challenges that have protected a speaker’s right to tell a board member, “you are impossible to underestimate.”  In July of 2021, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an Ohio school board’s policy prohibiting “personally directed,” “abusive” and “antagonistic” comments violated free-speech rights under the First Amendment.

Chairman Rigueur also states that it is the Board’s policy to disallow the displaying of signs during the Regular Meeting.  This is considered “expressive activity” and “speech” according the U.S. Supreme Court, which has recognized that freedom of speech “encompasses communication through nonverbal symbols.”

The National School Board Association states, and case law would agree, that “when a school board allows for pubic to comment, it creates a ‘designated public forum.’ This means the public generally has the right to speak regarding matters within the jurisdiction of the school board.”  Although Boards may place “reasonable” restrictions on the time, place, and manner of the speech, content-based restrictions will be judged more harshly.

As this discussion took up a large part of the Policy Committee Meeting, allowing for only one other item to be discussed, the proposed policy change for the “Public Comment” portion of the Regular Meeting agenda was tabled, to be given another taste test at a later date.