Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Book Challenges topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Duval school attorneys warn book‑challenge policy needs structural changes amid appeal of HB 1069 ruling
Summary
General counsel told the Duval County School District policy committee that a federal judge struck down parts of House Bill 1069; she urged clearer separation between instructional‑material challenges (statute‑driven, hearing officer) and library/classroom materials. The committee agreed to send the draft to the full board in January and continue edits afterward.
Chair Joyce opened the policy handbook review meeting and turned the first item over to staff for a proposed revision of policy 4.30 on challenged materials. General counsel Miss Spillings told the committee a federal judge in the Middle District had struck down parts of House Bill 1069 that affect the book‑challenge process and that the state has appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, with briefs due Dec. 12.
"That case," Spillings said, "the state has now appealed. They appealed it, I think, in mid September. There are briefs due. The state's brief, Volusia County District school district, and Orange County School District briefs are due, I believe, December 12 of this year." She warned the appeals process could take a year or more and said some districts are waiting for the Eleventh Circuit before changing policies.
Spillings recommended structural adjustments rather than a single catchall policy. "The way it's written, it speaks primarily to instructional materials," she said, adding that state statute 1006.28 treats challenges to instructional materials differently (the statute envisions a special magistrate or hearing officer) than challenges to library or classroom materials, which are typically handled by a district review committee that makes a recommendation to the full board. She advised the draft should clearly delineate those tracks to protect the district's process and make the review procedures defensible in litigation.
Several board members pressed staff to explain what would be changed. Board member Peterson said the fix could be short — inserting a paragraph clarifying instructional‑material procedures and aligning wording to the statutory categories — and suggested borrowing vetted language other districts use. Other members urged finishing the draft rather than waiting for an appellate decision.
Staff confirmed the draft includes a 30‑day turnaround from receipt of a challenge to a committee decision. Committee members agreed to place the draft on the next available board agenda with notice dated Jan. 6, and to continue revision work after the draft is presented. Chair Joyce said the committee would present the draft "as is" to the board and keep working on structural clarifications.
The committee did not take a final substantive vote on the policy text at the meeting; staff were directed to return with redlines and proposed procedural language that more clearly distinguishes instructional‑material challenges from other material challenges.
