Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy Political Activity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
School board adopts policy restricting political activity during work hours after heated debate
Summary
The Suffolk school board approved ordinance 24/25-89, a new policy limiting political activity by employees during work hours and clarifying that communications about laws that affect school operations are not political. The vote was 4–3 after a contentious public and board discussion.
The Suffolk City School Board on June 12 adopted ordinance 24/25-89, a policy that prohibits political activity by district employees during work hours or while acting in an official capacity and clarifies that providing factual information about laws that affect school operations is not political activity.
The policy broadly defines political activity to include actions aimed at the success or failure of a political party, partisan candidate, partisan group or efforts to change public policy. It permits employees to engage in political activity outside duty hours and allows the superintendent or a designated official to enforce the rule. The policy also outlines consequences for violations, including disciplinary action up to suspension or termination.
Board debate and public comment: The measure provoked strong discussion. Supporters said the policy preserves an apolitical educational environment and protects students from partisan messaging during school hours. Vice Chair McGee and other supporters framed the ordinance as a way to prevent political interference in instructional settings and to keep the superintendent—s office from being used for campaign activity.
Opponents warned the policy could chill legitimate communications and restrict the superintendent—s ability to inform families about legal changes that affect school operations. Several speakers and board members said the policy—s language risked singling out the superintendent or creating ambiguous standards about what constitutes political speech. Attorney guidance in committee stated that the superintendent—s role is referenced because that office executes and enforces district policy, not because the policy targeted an individual.
Vote and outcome: The ordinance passed by a 4–3 vote. Members recorded as voting yes were Board member Brittingham, Board member Slinglove, Vice Chair McGee and Chair Howell. Board members Fields, Jenkins and Riddick voted no. The board also heard public comment from citizens who urged clarity and cautioned against punitive language.
Implementation and next steps: The policy directs the superintendent or a designee to implement enforcement and communications protocols. Board members asked for future clarity on how the rule would be applied to school messages and to what extent prior approvals would be required for time-critical communications. The superintendent and board attorney said factual communications about laws enacted by national, state or local government that affect operations would not be considered political activity.
What this means locally: Supporters said the policy will help keep classrooms focused on instruction; opponents said it raises free-speech and administrative-risk questions that may require future refinement.
