Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Free Speech Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
West York board debates rewrite of Policy 3.20 on employee speech, asks for clearer sanctions language
Summary
The West York Area School District board discussed a solicitor‑drafted rewrite of Policy 3.20 (Freedom of Speech by Employees), questioned vague terms such as “address” and “outweigh,” and directed staff to revise wording to clarify possible sanctions before bringing the policy back for official first reading.
The West York Area School District Board of Directors discussed a solicitor‑drafted rewrite of Policy 3.20, titled Freedom of Speech by Employees, and asked administrators to return with clearer language before the policy’s next public reading and vote.
Board members said the new draft, prepared with input from the district solicitor, adds case law citations and attempts to define when employee speech as a private citizen can be acted on by the district. Several directors raised concerns that terms such as “address” and the legal standard “outweigh” are ambiguous and could be interpreted inconsistently.
Miss Jacoby, a district administrator, told the board the solicitor’s draft includes “many footnotes of the law” and recommended that, if approved, the district notify staff and include the revised policy in the district’s Vector training so employees acknowledge the change. “We would also have them acknowledge it in our Vector training so that everyone is aware that this policy has changed since they acknowledged it at the beginning of the school year,” Jacoby said.
Several board members pressed for a specific substitution for the word “address,” asking whether it meant merely discussing a post with an employee, asking that a post be removed, or taking formal discipline up to termination. One board member said the draft might be interpreted to allow “progressive disciplinary action up to and including termination” and urged language that makes the district’s intent consistent throughout the document.
Administrators and directors framed the rewrite as intended to clarify limits: employees retain free speech as private citizens but not when speech on or off duty “interferes with the educational programming.” Board members emphasized that actual consequences should depend on the degree of disruption the speech causes to students, staff, or classroom instruction.
The board directed staff to perform a targeted rewrite—changing or defining “address” (one suggestion was to use “sanction”) and ensuring consistent wording across the policy—and return the revised draft for a formal first reading at a future meeting.
No final policy vote took place; the item remained at discussion and will be scheduled for the board’s November agenda as a first reading after revision and additional review with staff and the association.
