Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy Speech topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates revised employee speech policy; some trustees cite vagueness and legal risk
Summary
Administrators recommended adopting PSBA‑drafted revisions to Policy 320 concerning employee speech; several trustees expressed concern the language is vague and could chill protected speech, while others favored following PSBA legal guidance.
The East Penn board discussed proposed revisions to Policy 320 (employee speech) on Oct. 13 after administration and legal counsel recommended adopting updated language developed by the Pennsylvania School Boards Association (PSBA). The recommended text draws on U.S. and Pennsylvania case law cited by the district solicitor.
Assistant Superintendent Robert Povilaitis (presenting the item) said PSBA and the district’s legal advisers recommended revised language that references relevant case law including Pickering and Daugherty v. School District of Philadelphia; administration’s position was to move forward with the PSBA‑recommended draft. Povilaitis said the suggested changes came after legal review and were intended to clarify the district’s existing standards.
Several trustees objected to the proposed text, calling it legally correct but operationally vague. Trustee Miss Bowman said “the vagueness of this really bothers me” and asked whether administration could provide in‑service training or concrete examples to help employees interpret the policy. Other trustees asked whether the policy’s wording — including phrases such as “disrupt harmony” and “disloyal” — could be removed or annotated.
Solicitor feedback presented in the meeting noted that some of the contested language mirrors judicial phrasing used in court opinions and that there is not a single bright‑line test offered by the courts to cover every factual scenario. Administration said it had consulted PSBA and the solicitor’s office and recommended keeping the draft language; trustees asked that the policy include clearer citations and that the board be able to pull the item for separate third‑reading consideration if needed.
No final vote was taken Oct. 13; the board agreed to move the draft to third reading and to allow members time to request edits. Trustees requested added legal citations and asked administration to consider providing supplemental guidance or training for staff about the policy’s application.
Ending
The board left the draft Policy 320 in the review process; administrators will add requested citations and may provide staff guidance, and the board will consider a separate vote at third reading.
