Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Penn board rejects updated employee speech policy after legal-language debate
Summary
On a divided vote the board defeated a proposed update to policy 320 (employee speech/related conduct). Supporters said the revised language reflects current case law and reduces legal risk; opponents said terms like "loyalty" and "harmony" create ambiguity and could be misused by future administrators.
The East Penn School District board on Monday voted down a proposed revision to policy 320 — the policy governing employee speech and related conduct — after a prolonged discussion on legal language and future interpretation.
Supporters of the update said the proposed text, drafted with PSBA legal guidance and the board solicitor’s input, cites court precedent and adds specificity that reduces legal ambiguity. "By not adopting this revised policy, the district would be exposing itself to more liability," the board solicitor told members when asked whether the new language clarified or increased legal risk.
Opponents, including several board members, said specific legal terms in the draft — notably references to "harmony" and "loyalty" — raise concerns. "The ambiguity of harmony and loyalty is troubling…theoretically I understand why the terms need to be vague," said one trustee, who added that a less-reasonable future superintendent and solicitor could misuse the language. That view led some trustees to oppose the update even as they acknowledged it was drafted to align with case law.
The roll call produced four ayes and five nays; the motion therefore failed and the current (2016) policy language remains in effect. Board members discussed whether to return to PSBA for further edits; the superintendent said she could request PSBA legal review again, but added that the association had been consulted multiple times already.
Why it matters: employee-speech policies balance staff free-speech rights with the district’s interest in ensuring orderly operations and protecting students and staff. Board members said the policy’s wording should protect employees while also reflecting established legal standards; those debates focused on phrasing rather than the broader intent of the policy.
Provenance: the policy debate and vote occurred during the policy section of the Oct. 27 meeting; the solicitor provided legal interpretation and the board took a roll-call vote that resulted in 4–5 defeat of the proposed revision.
