The first school board elections in Harford County have prompted Harford County Public Schools to issue new guidelines restricting political campaigning on school property and at school-sponsored events. HCPS is not the only school system to regulate campaign activity, but can such limits on political expression be enforced?
The HCPS guidelines were issued to school administrators on July 20, 2010, identifying three categories of campaigners, each with a different set of limitations.
Students have the least restrictions. They’re able to wear campaign buttons and clothing; hand out flyers; and communicate generally with other students on behalf of a candidate, as long as they don’t disrupt school operations or functions.
Employees are more restricted. No campaign buttons or clothing; no distribution of materials; and no attempts at general communication with students or other employees on behalf of a candidate (private conversations are okay). Teachers can use campaign materials as part of an approved, content-neutral lesson plan. All employees are exempted from these limitations at pre-approved, non-school events held at school facilities (the recent PTA candidates’ forums are a likely example).
“External persons” – candidates or others acting in support of a candidate – may wear campaign buttons or clothing, and can engage in private conversations in support of a candidate. But external persons cannot engage in general communication in support of a candidate, and are otherwise prohibited from campaigning on school grounds or at school- sponsored events such as football games, dances or field trips. Exceptions are made for pre-approved, non-school events held at school facilities.
In response to an inquiry from The Dagger as to the legal basis for the new guidelines, Teri Kranefeld, manager of communications for HCPS explained:
“In speaking with [General Counsel] Patrick Spicer, the “law” is not a single law or statute but rather for the most part the memo is based on various cases decided over years by the courts that have formulated the rights of outside persons, (e.g. candidates),employees and students with respect to political campaigning. Constitutional rights to free speech and whether the school has opened a limited open forum for speech are implicated in these decisions. Also under Maryland statute, school systems have the right to regulate what occurs on school premises. Therefore, the memo is essentially a summary of the parameters established by these decisions as well as the statute which gives the school system the right to control the school grounds.”
Kranefeld also said that there was concern that candidates would use schools and school activities as a platform for their campaigns, and anyone found violating the rules would be asked to “cease and desist”.
HCPS will get no pushback from Bob Frisch, a school board candidate in District A who has been at Edgewood schools, displaying signs and waiving at passing cars. The guidelines were e-mailed to school board candidates on August 13, and Frisch told The Dagger that he intends to comply with the new rules.
But Harford County Election Director Jim Massey sees the potential for legal challenges on several grounds. Massey, who is careful to point out that he is not a lawyer, had this to say after a review of the HCPS guidelines:
“The basis of these guidelines seems to be stating what political activities on school property are permitted and not permitted by external persons (candidates), students, and employees. I believe that someone could challenge them on the first amendment right for political expression.
There has been a trend in the courts to allow political expression in areas that were previously restricted. Baltimore County’s restriction on the time limit that political signs could be displayed was challenged by the ACLU. The courts said that you could not limit the residents’ political expression.
Recently, the courts agreed that the right of someone to display a sign on private property could not be restricted when the property is within 100 foot of the polling place on Election Day.
This could be a very interesting test case if the school system was challenged. Maryland Election Law does not address any restrictions of political campaign activities. Most public institutions, county, library, college; have policies about prohibiting campaigning on their premises. The school’s policy does permit their students to distribute campaign materials. The courts might also look at why the students are permitted, but not external persons. That could be a question as well.”
The full text of the HCPS memorandum is below:
I do not see how any organization can restrict the right of an employee to wear a campaign button, shirt, tie, or other personal apparel item (providing the dress codes of the school are met) as that is a direct violation of a person’s 1st amendment right to free speech.
Come on ProudDemocrat, help me out here.
ProudDemocrat –
Well you obviously can’t see and you are wrong. The school district has a duty to ensure that teachers do not indoctrinate students with their personal biases.
BR
As a teacher, I have to say I agree with Bulle Rocker. It is standard operatingprocedure for anything I teach that involves a controversial issue. For example, if we are debating the death penalty, I can have students explore both sides of the issue and give information about both and may even have the students generate their own final opinion, but it is not my place to tell them what my opinion is on the issue. If they ask, I usually just dodge the question. I can agree with this because I would not want my own kid going to school and having a teacher tell him that his parents were “wrong” on issues that have no right/wrong answer.
BulleRocker –
Rather a harsh retort, “Well you obviously can’t see and you are wrong.” when your second sentence of disagreement would have sufficed. Such verbiage only serves to undermine your objectivity and and credibility.
a citizen says –
I too am a teacher and frequently play devils advocate to spark debate and insist on intellectual argument in support of student opinions. They do not get off so easy as to make statements without reasoned support and an ability to articulate their positions.
When asked my opinion I am not ashamed to voice it. I am careful not to “indoctrinate” or tell them their parents are “wrong” as many fear teachers will do. Dodging the question does not promote honesty and trust between teacher and student. Students are smart enough to understand something is just your opinion when properly explained.
also a teacher
ForestHillResident is advocating overt teacher political activism while at work and invoking 1st Amendment Rights to do so, which is a deplorable liberal/progressive indoctrination technique.
BR
I do not recall ForestHillResident on the Dagger but at this time I will take your word for it. As a conservative I do not advocate overt or covert indoctrination from either side of the political isle. I just do not believe teachers check their 1st amendment rights at the school house door. As a professional I understand the need to careful in the classroom but do not think we need to be completely neutral about anything that has the slightest hint of being “controversial.” We are preparing students to navigate in the real world which will certainly not be so sterile.
The only one arguing first amendment rights is McDonough when he agreed not to politicize the 4th of July parade, then brought his fool signs, then threatened to sue on those grounds. Again, my assertion in that other thread about his anti-immigrant bill is that it should be self-evident that conservatives should not be inventing new ways for lawyers to sue police, teachers, anyone because it always has unintended consequences. That said I also feel it should be self-evident that a toupee doesn’t fool anyone yet McDonough doesn’t seem get that concept either.
I do agree with the rules that teachers should not be politically campaigning on school grounds. I also feel that politicians should not be whorishly conducting a political campaign on school grounds as when Impallaria inserted himself into the functions of a school that isn’t even in his representative district for singular goal of gaining press attention.
That said, we should not be overracting to the point of attempting to abolish all political discourse. I do want my children to understand current events and develop the analytical capacity to understand alternative points of view and begin the process of sifting the good ideas from the bad based upon the facts and their moral values — you know, all those things that McDonough and Impallaria are incapable of.
This is fun. Thanks for inviting me into this thread.
ForestHillResident
Quote: “Again, my assertion in that other thread about his anti-immigrant bill is that it should be self-evident that conservatives should not be inventing new ways for lawyers to sue police, teachers, anyone because it always has unintended consequences.”
Your statement is patently absurd and makes no sense.
BR
I agree with your point that the school board should not be about abolishing free speech. I believe they stirred up a hornets nest that was better left alone and in doing so have further alienated the teachers in the process. This years is already shaping up to be a difficult one concerning relations between teachers versus the school board and superintendent. I predict a significant change in attitude (forced) for the school board and superintendent when the newly elected members of the board take their seats.
Are you trying to say that passage 2G doesn’t exist in the Arizona immigration bill available for reading here: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Or are you trying to say that you are one of the only conservative in existence today that doesn’t think we already live in an overly litigious society?
ForestHillResident –
I am saying that your assertion that SB1070 type laws intend to create or will result in –
“new ways for lawyers to sue police, teachers”
Your statement and premise are foolish.
BR
also a teacher
It is wrong for teachers to use their positions of authority and classrooms to achieve their political goals.
It is within the province of any employer to limit political and religious speech in the workplace since the employee has sold their labor in return for compensation. While a teacher is working the school gets to decide what is acceptable use the employee’s time while on the job.
BR
Does this include a school systems forcing teachers to foist “progressive” ideology on students through programs like Drama Therapy or mandating that school web filters allow sexually oriented material to be accessed on school computers against the wishes of parents whose prerogatives you want to protect by limiting reasonable speech by teachers? Your rationale suggests that employers can require employees to teach a particular agenda because it suits those in power who are calling the shots. What is the difference? Might makes right?! If you truly want neutrality in instruction you should start with the superintendent and the school board.
When did sexually oriented material get through the filter? Are you exaggeratting a tad? Also the board did not want LGBT material through and was sued!
There was the threat of being sued. This does not mean such a suit would have been successful. The board took the opinion of just one lawyer, their own. If they were that set against the policy they could have sought a second or third opinion. There are two tables in a courtroom where each side has a chance to make their case before the judge or jury. Public opinion was against this policy (opening the filters) and if the board had gotten a differing view from another attorney the courtroom should have been given serious consideration. If they tried and lost at least those against the policy would have given the board credit for the attempt.
also a teacher –
“Your rationale suggests that employers can require employees to teach a particular agenda”
My posts have not suggested anything of the sort and nor does the school HCPS policy and for you to say otherwise is intellectually dishonest and untrue.
A well written employee policy will carefully say not to engage in ANY political speech while on duty and at work. It does not restrict any particular political speech when it prohibits all political speech.
BR
All I did was ask the question, I did not make an insinuation. I used the examples of the slippery slope I mentioned before. Nevertheless the school system does promote political agendas through the use of curriculum which teachers are obligated to teach. This is found everywhere the flavor only depends on the makeup of the specific school board.
Any policy that prohibits all political speech is unconstitutional and only demonstrates a school system with its’ head in the sand. I say it again, we are preparing students for the real world where differences are the norm not the exception. I am not saying teachers should be allowed to actively (hand out literature, display posters, or give political speeches, etc.) campaign or aggressively espouse a particular agenda but we do a disservice to students by ignoring the obvious.
I for one am going to wear my ‘One Maryland’ O’Malley inauguration pin to work Monday, and I would love to see anybody do a damn thing about it. It is my right to wear whatever lapel pin I want assuming it is not vulgar and offensive (a student in my class last year wore a tie with an anti marriage-equality message on a confederate flag background; that is an example of truly vulgar and unacceptable apparel, not a candidate’s pin!).
Bring it on school board, fire me because I have a pin, and you will hear from a team of lawyers I promise you, and it will not be cheap, nor will it be easy.
This issue will be discussed at the meeting on Thursday. This attempt by the school board to limit free political speech at schools lays down a very dangerous foundation for them to limit other types of speech that the school board and superintendent feel undermines their control. It is a slippery slope and the latest attempt to mussel the teachers union. Does anyone recall how the board and superintendent cut off access to school wide email by the teachers union because the administration didn’t like want they read. Hopefully with the change to an elected school board such shenanigans will be stopped and the superintendent reigned in.
Elected school board is a major double-ended sword. If we get good people like Frish on there, things may be okay. On the other hand if we get bigoted racists who veil their putrid slime with the words ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ (people like Grambo), then HCPS could be in for some VERY rough times ahead.
Make that double edged, not double ended!
Thank you for the vote of confidence, I really appreciate it. I honestly believe that if people do their homework and look beyond the resume (which can be easily misleading) to see what the real person is about they will find stark differences between me and my opponents. Punch our names into any search engine or select data base and see what you find. It will be enlightening.
I forgot, in the interest of disclosure I am a candidate for the school board running in District A representing the Edgewood, Joppatowne, and Joppa communities.
It’s sad to see a teacher comment that they can wear whatever kind of pin they wish to, but because the student expressed a viewpoint that they disagreed with, the student’s item was “truly vulgar and unacceptable apparel”. I find this teacher’s attitude truly vulgar and unacceptable, and am thankful that my children will not be in this teacher’s class.
It’s so easy to cry “My rights! Do not violate my rights! I’ll sue!” but it takes a reasonable, intelligent person to also recognize the rights of others with opposing views, and that seems to be sorely missing here.
If you are ignorant enough to tell me that a person has a right to wear a confederate flag tie to a class taught by an African-American, then you are a bigoted person whose opinion sadly carries far more weight than it should. People like you are the reason we have so many problems in our country, you are racist vile slime that should wash away in the storm gutters, but like a persistent algal mucus you keep coming back and growing… you make me sick.
BSmeter
Your attitude as a teacher and a human being is deplorable, have you no shame?
You should apologize to your fellow teachers for your bad behavior.
BR
Should I go into detail about how little I care about your opinion of me, or will you settle for ‘Not at all’?
BSmeter, Sir you sound as if you have some emotional issues to work out before you are entrusted with a classroom full of young impressionable students. I sometimes wonder if the only reason some enter the education system is to push their own political doctrine on the helpless. That’s another reason my kids are in private school.
A real teacher would instruct from a neutral viewpoint.
Perhaps it would be better to teach kids about the real world and that ALL politicians in ALL parties are, shall we say… “truth and morals challenged”… that’s certainly kept me from being surprised by anything politicians do.
BSmeter –
You’re just the kind of teacher that makes it bad for everyone else.
You act pretty brave about your personal political promotion, but not brave enough to announce who you are publicly before your plan to promote O’Malley at school tomorrow.
Maybe you should point your BS meter at yourself?
BR
Says the person who is not showing themselves, and as it is, is probably not a teacher.
BSmeter
Did you flaunt your O’Malley pin in flagrant disregard of workplace rules at school today?
BR
Refrence Garcetti v Ceballos (2006) Job duty speech can be limited for public employees (SCOTUS)
Two cases based on this have come up (taken from PSEA website)
” In a 2007 Indiana federal court case, a student asked a probationary first-year teacher during a class discussion if she ever participated in a political demonstration. The teacher answered that she had honked her car horn as she passed by an anti-war demonstration during non-working hours, in which protesters held signs encouraging passersby to “Honk for Peace.” Some parents called the school to complain, and her administrator advised all teachers to avoid taking political stances in the classroom.
The teacher’s contract was not renewed for a second year, and the teacher filed a lawsuit, claiming that the district had retaliated against her for exercising her constitutionally-protected right to free speech. However, the courts agreed with the school district, holding that the teacher’s classroom speech was not constitutionally-protected. The courts ruled that a school district can restrict teachers from stating viewpoints or covering topics that do not involve district curriculum while performing official job duties.”
Additionally
Pickering v BOE Township High School District 205, Will County (1968) A teachers extra curricullar speech can not be curtailed. (SCOTUS)
Then again, maybe the district didn’t pick up her contract because she was a crappy teacher… it’s easier to gin up a story and sue over it than admit you’re a failure.
That is possible too but the case and accompanying decision are clear about the limits of free speech for public employees.
This weekend there are suddenly a lot of Jansen Robinson signs going up in Edgewood and Joppatowne. I wonder how he is paying for them? Dion comes to mind.
I’ve heard through the grapevine that Dion is indeed behind the newly designed (and larger) Jansen Robinson signs. Probably in response to the fact that Frisch seems to be gaining a ton of traction and Jansen is a woefully inadequate candidate. Both Jansen and Rovall Washington (whose campaign is being managed by Robinson) have been placing signs on private property without permission. Wish I could say I was surprised. Also heard that Dion somehow managed to place signs in the front yard of his District A opponent before they were removed. Utterly classless.
Everyone needs to remember that Robinson has a history of personal financial troubles. How can he afford this sudden campaign expenditure without help? I think we can guess.
One of my opponents many exwives called me wanting to know how someone unemployed, with 18 cases (3 for domestic violence, 1 for campaign misuse)who owes 3 women for child support, can afford large yard signs. His children were so upset over him adding a family logo (on his signs) while they do not have a relationship, his daughters created a voters against jim facebook.com page.
Now, on a positive note my signs are created with biodegradable fabric, respecting mother earth!
rebeccaforsenate.com
GUTHERIE VIOLATES BOE CAMPAIGN RULES ON SCHOOL PROPERTY!
This can’t be said enough and speaks volumes about the man! He also has many campaign signs out that are clearly in violation of State campaign laws.
A local candidate forum was held at Joppatowne HS tonight. One candidate disgraced himself by flagrantly violating the campaign rules on school property. Mr. Guthrie had placed a large three panel display in the school lobby. When a complaint was made Mr. Guthrie was forced to remove his display but this did not his keep supporters from passing out campaign literature to citizens as they approached the building. Other Guthrie supports in the audience also made a poor showing of themselves by making snide comments when other candidates were trying to answer questions from the moderator. Mr. Guthrie’s willful disregard for the rules is just another demonstration of his arrogance and belief that he is above the rules. His actions have already been reported to the school board. I would hope that the board and their attorney publicly admonish Mr. Guthrie for his crass behavior. Obviously Mr. Guthrie and several of his supporters lack any class. If this is the kind of people that he surrounds himself with that raises serious questions about his ability to judge character, or maybe this actually demonstrates Mr. Guthrie’s lack of character. After all we know what they say about birds of a feather.
Classless act.
This morning I was roadside waving on Rt. 40 just West of Joppa Farm Road. A place frequented by several candidates during the course of the campaign season. There is a gentlemen’s agreement of sorts that opposing candidates will not horn in on a location where one candidate has already set up.
Today State Senate candidate Rovall Washington pulled to the side of the road some 30+ yards in front of and in clear view of my location and brought out a large Jansen Robinson sign (a school board opponent) and one for himself. Moments later Mr. Robinson arrived with others and began to wave.
Such actions demonstrate a lack of common courtesy and speaks to the character of the individuals involved. This behavior when considered along side Mr. Robinson’s questionable conduct at the recent candidate’s forum held at Joppatowne HS should raise questions about his fitness to serve in public office. If Mr. Robinson stoops to low tactics on such little things what kind of integrity can we expect of him on issues of major importance.
I have repeatedly stated that voters need to do their own homework. Look beyond the resume and at what the candidates actually do. Actions speak louder than words and Mr. Robinson’s recent actions speak volumes about him as an individual. Similar questions surround Mr. Washington. Voters also need to carefully observe what current officeholders who associate themselves with candidates of this nature.
Almost everyone I talk to expresses their disappointment with dirty politics and the get ahead at all costs attitude that seems to permeate much of the political landscape. This appears to be more of the same. In keeping with Mr. Robinson’s favorite quote, “If we always do what we have always done we will always get what we have always gotten.” I absolutely agree. So under the circumstances why would anyone vote for Mr. Robinson?
Bob Frisch
Board of Education candidate
District A (Edgewood, Joppatowne, Joppa)
You seem surprised. I’m certainly not. Illegally placed signs, poor showing at community events, etc. These are simply a pair of political opportunists who have nothing to offer. Add Dion into that mix as well.
Team Frisch!
I am not surprised at the conduct, just how blatant it is – which is even more to the point about character and integrity that I was making. In my closing statement during the earlier HCCPTA forum we had at Joppatowne HS I said that voters should pick the candidate they could trust with the future of their children and grandchildren. Would anyone seriously TRUST these people?
Mr. Frisch, you’ve used the words “character” and “integrity” while discussing politicians… ha, ha, oh, my sides… thanks I needed a laugh this morning.
Given the perpetrators, it doesn’t really surprise me.
Don’t sweat it, and good luck!