At their Sept. 27 workshop, Liberty County school board members were asked to review a revised public participation policy and a proposed new rule of conduct policy prior to it being placed as an action item at a future meeting.
Board Chair Lily Baker asked for the review of the documents as soon as possible and to send any recommendations or concerns to system Superintendent Dr. Franklin Perry so he has time to make any necessary changes.
The BOE first reviewed the revised policy and newly proposed rules of conduct during its Sept. 13 meeting, when Deputy Superintendent Dr. Zheadric Barbra presented it to the board. Barbra said many school boards, including the LCSS, already have established policies or practices of allowing the public to speak but the right was not mandated by law until July 1, 2021 when an addition to state code 20-2-58 became effective.
Barbra said the Georgia School Board Association required by Oct. 1 this year, and by Aug. 1 each year thereafter, each local board to adopt rules of conduct for public meetings and publish those rules in a prominent manner on its public website. Those rules will include provisions for the removal of members of the public for actual disruption of a public school board meeting.
Baker’s request came after several local education advocates and stakeholders expressed concerns that the BOE is trying to limit their ability to speak. One education advocate has stated openly one proposed rule of conduct is a direct violation of the First Amendment and is planning a lawsuit against the LCSS if the policy goes into effect as written.
Gerry Wayne Monroe, of Houston, Texas said a provision written into the rules that prohibits anyone living outside the district from speaking during public participation violate his First Amendment right to speak in a limited public forum. He said it also violates Georgia Senate Bill 588 as recently passed.
“There is nothing in this bill (SB 588) that says that,” Monroe said about a member of the public having to be a resident or have a child in the school district in order to speak at a meeting. He pointed to the final sentence of SB 588 that states, “All laws and parts of laws that are in conflict with this bill are repealed.”
“That means if it wasn’t in the bill, you can’t add it to the bill,” Monroe said. “You can’t say you are using this bill to make up a rule that will violate the Constitution of the United States.”
Monroe said he is ready to come to Hinesville, with bail money, and be arrested as he asserts his right to speak. Monroe successfully sued a school district in Houston for a similar violation and was awarded $300,000 in 2019. Monroe said he travels all across the country, meeting with school districts to right the wrongs, especially when it comes to special needs students. He said he specializes in finding federal violations being committed by school districts and fighting those battles in court.
In January of this year, Monroe came to Hinesville and spoke to the board addressing the three people who were escorted out of a BOE meeting Dec. 14, 2021. He said someone sent him a video showing Willie Brown Jr., Kisya Burnett and Angela Siets being escorted out by Hinesville police. Since then, he’s been mentoring Burnett, who speaks for the educators at nearly every meeting.
During his visit in January, Monroe met with Dr. Perry to discuss several matters and praised the district for its school and advanced technology. The revision the board is poised to approve to its current policies is primarily introducing new language allowing the public to address the board as long as it follows the newly proposed rules of conduct.
While some of the rules being proposed are what the public already adheres to in terms of time limits, being respectful, stating their names, not identifying school employees or staff by name and remaining civil. But other proposed rules of conduct have raised a few eyebrows.
Parents would be prohibited from bringing signs, flags and banners into the board meeting room. One rule, the main one Monroe and others have questioned, states that only residents of the school district, representatives of businesses or organizations located in the district, parents or guardians of students attending T:5.125' the schools of the district, or school system employees may address the board during public participation. Another proposed rule prohibits loud and boisterous conduct or comments.
But Monroe said the board has failed to define what they consider loud and failed to define what constitutes disruptive behavior. He questioned whether the board reviewed their proposed rules of conduct with the district’s attorney.
Baker said the school board’s attorney reviews policies prior to board approval She said she was made aware of Monroe’s intention a day after their Sept. 13 meeting.
