Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Prayer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters split over prayer at board meetings; officials say no policy change tonight
Summary
Several public speakers urged the board to allow invocations or prayers at meetings, while others warned against privileging religion in public schools. Board members did not adopt any new invocation policy during the meeting.
A heated public-comment segment at the Tavares County Board of Education's May 12 meeting included sharply divergent views about prayer and religious invocation at public meetings, but the board did not adopt any policy changes during the session.
Michael Roberts, who said he volunteers with Capital Ministries, told the board "Capital Ministries is not and does not lobby. We are a 501(c)(3) organization" and urged the board to consider opening meetings with prayer. "If you do vote to pray before your meetings, you will be in very good company," he said, invoking past legislative practice.
Board member Pamela Escobar responded during board comments with a personal defense of faith and service, saying, "Love one another as I have loved you," and adding that her faith guides how she serves the county. She said elected leaders have the power to address school financial struggles and student needs.
Other public commenters urged caution. Nancy O'Forth, describing herself as a former public school teacher, told the board, "I do not believe that invoking God's presence at a board meeting is called for," and cautioned that the district must be mindful of community diversity. Keshia Sandage, a former board member, said she stopped attending outside prayers associated with a local group because the communications made her uncomfortable.
Community leader Sabrina Berry criticized remarks by a sitting board member as "mockery, plain and simple," saying that mocking prayer or faith is not appropriate and arguing for mutual respect among elected officials and religious constituents.
Board members did not take a formal vote or direct staff to change the district's invocation practice during the meeting. After public comment and a period of back-and-forth between speakers and attendees that included at least one outburst, the chair moved on to the consent agenda.
The meeting later convened a closed session under statutory exceptions for attorney-client privilege, confidential personnel matters and privileged information (General Statute 143-318.11(a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(6)), but the invocation discussion itself remained in the public record and no procedural change was announced at the meeting's close.
