L'Anse Creuse board votes 6–1 to accept $1.3 million in state safety funds despite legal privacy concerns
Loading...
Summary
After a two‑hour legal briefing and extended Q&A, the L'Anse Creuse Committee of the Whole voted 6–1 to opt in to Section 31AA school safety and mental‑health grant funding (about $1.3M). Board members raised concerns about waiver of attorney‑client and student‑teacher privileges and potential insurance and FOIA implications.
L'Anse Creuse Public Schools' Committee of the Whole voted 6–1 on Nov. 10 to accept Section 31AA grant funds for school safety and mental‑health programs, authorizing Superintendent staff to opt in to the state program despite unresolved legal questions about a required waiver of privilege.
The board approved Exhibit A — a resolution to opt in to 31AA funds — on a motion by Board Member Adam Sellers, supported by Board Member Mister Doss. The roll call recorded six votes in favor and one opposed: Missus Ross cast the lone no vote.
The decision followed a lengthy presentation by district legal counsel, introduced as John Cava (Collins & Blaha). Cava told the board that Section 31AA is part of the State School Aid Act; he said the statewide program this year amounts to roughly $321 million, of which a district allocation could total about $1.3 million. He explained the statute’s condition: if a district elects to accept the funds and later a qualifying “mass casualty event” occurs, the district must agree to provide documents and cooperate with a third‑party investigator appointed by the state or governor’s office — which could require waiving legal privileges.
Cava described the statutory definition of a mass casualty event as broad (ranging from a fatality to “significant injury” to three or more people) and said many questions remain unanswered in practice about how privileges and other legal protections will be treated. He warned that "waiving privilege does not inherently waive immunity," but also said turning over privileged materials could lead to litigation that might, under some factual scenarios, put governmental immunity at risk.
Board members pressed for specifics. Several raised explicit worries about whether the waiver would reach teacher‑student confidentiality, FERPA‑protected student records, whether released materials could become subject to FOIA requests, and how long the waiver might last. Counsel said those issues are unsettled: some materials might be redacted or litigated, and an appointed investigator often compiles reviewed documents into a public report; courts and future litigation are likely to clarify limits.
Financial tradeoffs featured heavily. The superintendent said the district previously budgeted $800,000 conservatively for these funds; when the final allocation came through the district’s expected total rose to approximately $1.3 million for the year. Several board members said their districts face difficult choices between accepting conditional funds and preserving legal protections for staff and students. One board member framed the choice bluntly, saying the conditions felt like being forced to “sell your soul to the devil” to get state money.
Counsel emphasized the choice to opt in is not purely legal but a policy and financial decision. He urged the board to weigh district finances, existing safety investments, and litigation risk. He also said that if a mass‑casualty investigation were triggered, the state investigator likely would arrive months after the event and that insurers and internal crisis teams would operate in the interim.
Despite the reservations and public questions, the board adopted the resolution to opt in before the statutory opt‑in deadline (cited in the packet and discussed at the meeting as Nov. 30). The motion passed with the following roll call: Sellers (yes), Doss (yes), De Villa (yes), Cypress (yes), Herndon (yes), Lipsky (yes), Ross (no). The board then moved into closed session for unrelated contract negotiation matters.
What happens next: the superintendent or designee will provide required documentation to the Michigan Department of Education as the resolution directs, and the district will proceed with the administrative steps needed to receive the 31AA allocation. Board members and counsel highlighted that several legal questions — scope and duration of the waiver, FOIA and FERPA interactions, and potential insurance impacts — remain open and could be litigated or clarified by future administrative guidance.
The board’s decision leaves the district with roughly $1.3 million in additional funding this year but also with lingering legal uncertainty about how much privileged information the district and its employees might have to disclose in a state‑appointed investigation.
