L'Anse Creuse board approves $1.3 million Section 31AA safety funds after heated debate over waiver of privilege

The L'Anse Creuse Public Schools Board voted 6–1 Nov. 10 to accept Section 31AA safety and mental‑health grant funding that counsel said could total about $1.3 million for the district this year. The decision followed more than two hours of legal briefing and a question‑and‑answer session on what the statute’s requirement to “waive any privilege” would mean in practice.

Board counsel John Cava of Collins & Blaha told trustees the statute requires districts that opt in to permit a third‑party or state‑appointed investigator access to documents and information after a qualifying mass‑casualty event. "The statute says that you have to agree to waive any privilege," Cava said, adding the language is broad and several important definitions are not yet clarified by the Michigan Department of Education.

Trustees pressed Cava on practical consequences. He said waiver language could reach attorney‑client communications, raise FOIA implications and touch other protections, including teacher‑student confidentiality and information protected under FERPA. "Waiving privilege does not inherently waive immunity," he said, "but it does turn over additional information to a third‑party investigator, which could potentially lead to the loss of governmental immunity at some point in the future." (Counsel also cautioned that some questions would likely be litigated.)

Several board members said the district faced a difficult choice between accepting money to support safety, security and mental‑health services and protecting legal privileges and employee protections. One trustee framed the trade‑off bluntly: "We have been asked to either waive privilege or potentially lay off staff," the presiding officer said during debate. Another board member argued the decision was political in origin, tracing the change to high‑profile incidents in other districts and saying the state had attached new conditions to previously unrestricted funds.

Opposition centered on confidentiality concerns. "Attorney‑client gets to be done in closed session, period," a dissenting member said during the discussion. That member cast the lone no vote on the final roll call.

Board members who supported the resolution said the district’s financial position and existing safety investments were part of the calculus. Counsel suggested the consideration should weigh the district’s fund balance, existing security measures and the potential long‑term cost of increased insurance exposure against the one‑year funding benefit.

The board approved Exhibit A — the resolution to opt in to Section 31AA funds as drafted by Collins & Blaha — by roll call: Sellers Yes; Doss Yes; De Villa Yes; Cypress Yes; Herndon Yes; Lipsky Yes; Ross No. Following the vote the board moved into a closed session for negotiation strategy.

The vote commits the district to accept the grant under the conditions described in the resolution; counsel and multiple speakers told trustees there remain unanswered questions about scope, duration and downstream consequences of the waiver language that could be subject to future litigation or administrative clarification.