The meeting room for the Park County School District 1 board of trustees had an unusually large audience — about 20 strong —  for Tuesday’s workshop meeting. 

Some may have been concerned about a policy discussion that took place straight off the bat about political campaigns/activities. The policy in question, GBI-2, formerly read that employees “shall not engage in political activities during school hours or on school premises, nor use students for political propaganda purposes.” It further indicated political activities cannot interfere with the ability of the employee to meet job assignments. 

Superintendent Jay Curtis’s argument against the original policy, which had been policy for more than 30 years, was that it was very general and didn’t differentiate much between students and staff.

“There are rules that apply to staff and rules that apply to students,” Curtis explained. “As you work through the policy you will see there are different rules for the staff and for the students because of the constitutional rights of the students.”

Curtis said he had first consulted the board’s attorney, Tracy Copenhaver, who suggested the superintendent find an example of a new policy he liked and have Copenhaver review it.

The two examples Curtis chose are both from Minnesota. He chose them, he said, because they had a stated purpose and included definitions apart from the accepted vernacular. For instance, distribution generally means handing out information, but the new policy under consideration defines it as handing out, posting, free copies, copies for sale or donation, and posting anything on a bulletin board or any other surface on school district property. 

The two policies provide delineation between student First Amendment rights and staff First Amendment rights. Curtis noted it was appropriate for students to wear a candidate T-shirt but not appropriate for teacher or staff to do the same because it could alienate at least half or more of the students that staff member is paid to teach.

“The courts have been very, very clear over the years that staff does not have the same First Amendment rights as students during working hours,” Curtis stated. “The word I will call to your attention is neutrality — the district must remain neutral. Our charge is to teach kids and if you alienate kids it is very, very hard to teach them.”

Meanwhile, the board is considering a new policy, GBI-3, that deals with distribution of non-school-sponsored materials on school district property by students or employees.

There are already rules about what clubs can post. That material must be in certain locations, contain certain information and must be approved by the administration.

Teachers can hang political items in their classrooms as a curriculum prop temporarily with approval. An example might be a sample ballot. 

In the new policy, the district recognizes the right of expression and allows distribution of non-sponsored material at a “reasonable time and place and in a reasonable manner.” It excludes material considered obscene to minors.

“I like that it offers a definition of what constitutes a disruption to the school environment,” Curtis said. “It gives us the latitude [to stop it] if it is causing a division among students or distraction to students and the school environment.”

He went on to say the policies would be read in July, following review by the attorney and input from staff and community stakeholders. Curtis invited those in audience to send emails or written comments on the policies. The second readings are planned for August. 

“The policy we had was good for a long, long time,” Curtis said. “But there has never been a more politically divided environment as this. We as administrators need the tools to move forward in a politically charged environment.”

Board chairman Trace Paul said the new policies were an improvement over the existing verbiage.

Last month, Curtis had suggested that the board should also change the district’s policy on “controversial issues,” referred to by code IMB. However, “when I really dug into it, IMB is pretty reasonable and OK, because what I was really trying to accomplish is really addressed in GBI-2 and now you see GBI-3,” he told the board.

At the end of Tuesday’s meeting, several members of the audience expressed their dissatisfaction with the way the meeting was run. 

One attendee asked why there was no Pledge of Allegiance included and Paul said it was because this was a workshop meeting; generally speaking, workshops are discussion oriented and no items are voted on other than approving the agenda. Public comment is also unusual at a workshop, although a public comment item is provided on the business meeting agenda.

Other comments from attendees included that it was difficult to hear without the board using microphones, but Curtis pointed out it was hard to hear when the members wore them, too.

Lastly, an audience member asked how they could comment on the policies. Curtis guided her to the district website. On learning the woman was a spokesperson for the Park County Action Committee — an organization of conservatives and Christian conservatives who want to influence the schools and political climate in the county — Curtis offered to come to their meetings to discuss their concerns; Paul indicated he would be willing to attend as well.