Speak No Evil:
Critic criticizes criticism ban
By Chip Drago
Mobile Bay Times
Members of the Mobile County Board of School Commissioners need to develop thicker skin in the face of unjust criticism and a keener ear for warranted criticism, rather than seeking to squelch criticism of any named individual, according to a spokesman for a local teachers’ union.
Mobile County Education Association director Wade Perry suggested adoption of a policy banning criticism during School Board meetings would serve only to enrich attorneys, provoke further ridicule of the board and distract the board from issues relevant to a better school system.
Longtime school board member Hazel Fournier has proposed a policy banning attacks on "any citizen's good name." The penalty for such an offense would include a possible ban for a year before the person could address the board again. Existing policy prohibits discussion of the "character, reputation or good name of an individual."
Fournier has said she does not object to criticism of the board’s actions, only personal attacks.
But the right to free speech trumps Fournier’s concerns, according to Perry.
The issue has already been resolved locally, Perry noted, pointing to the suit filed in 2004 by MCEA on behalf of then south Mobile school teacher Cindy Naylor at the Mobile County Public School System. The board muzzled Naylor by adjourning a meeting when the audience erupted in applause after the teacher criticized the board for overloading teachers with paperwork. Mobile County Circuit Judge Rusty Johnston upheld Naylor and the MCEA, ruling that the board had no right to suppress her remarks once the floor was opened to public comment.
Perry submitted the following statement for the board’s consideration before it votes on the public participation policy:
"1) The underlying issue has been litigated in Naylor/MCEA vs. MCPSS and the school board lost miserably in the court of law and the court of public opinion. The court clearly stated that once a public forum has been provided, dissenting opinions (or concurring) cannot be squelched. The judge went on to cite several long standing precedents regarding the perils of limiting free speech in public forums (you are strongly encouraged to read this opinion). The only winner in that case was Jim Atchison, who was paid quite well to defend an indefensible position taken by the school board. Why would you want to do that again? You are going to lose, again.
2) Aside from being legally dubious, the mere proposal of this policy has resulted in further embarrassment for a school board already battered by scandals and poor decisions. Editorials, cartoons, letters to the editor, sound offs, and comments to news programs all indicate a public that is incredulous at the arrogance of proposing a policy meant to shield board members from legitimate criticisms. It is un-American and everyone knows it. Dennis Bailey, attorney for the press association, stated that the proposed policy went well beyond anything he had ever heard of in his years of experience with similar situations. Coupled with questionable closed meetings, and following moonpies, impeachments and the botched handling of (superintendent) Dr. (Harold) Dodge’s situation, the public and the media have a right to be skeptical of the motives of a school board who seems intent on doing whatever they want to regardless of the law or public sentiment. Why not stop the bleeding now? Acknowledge that mistakes have been made. Apologize to the public for all of the embarrassment and damage you have caused to the taxpayers’ confidence in the school system. A little common sense goes a long way. Swallow your pride and do the right thing.
3) Passing the policy will only cause further embarrassment to the school board and more expense to the tax payers (see #1). If the policy is passed, it will be tested and you will lose. In doing so the board will cause more education tax dollars to be spent on high paid attorneys who will get paid win, lose, or draw - and you are going to lose. The board will also further damage its credibility with the public who disagrees with limiting criticism of this board. It is worth noting that my guess is that the media will continue to do a fine job of pointing out the school board’s efforts to insulate itself from ideas and criticisms from concerned citizens and tax payers, again.
4) Passing the policy does nothing to address the real problems facing the school system. How does this help the system address the teacher shortage? How does it help improve test scores? How does it help increase parental involvement? How does it help us close the gap? How does it improve public confidence in the school system? It doesn’t. What it does do however, is suggest that punishing those who have the audacity to criticize the board takes precedence over some real issues. Is the school system more damaged by someone criticizing a board member for wasting education dollars in a Mardi Gras parade than it is by the fact that the board member actually did it? No, in fact, quite the opposite is true. Passing this policy punishes those who point out wrongdoing rather than those doing wrong.
‘Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and others. Their fear is only their inability to face what is real. Somewhere in their upbringing they were shielded against the total facts of our experience. They were only taught to look one way when many ways exist.’ -- Charles Bukowski"
The board is expected to act on Fournier’s proposal at a future meeting.
