Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Free Speech Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates wording on employees' noninstructional speech; legal review to follow
Summary
The committee scrutinized Policy 3310’s phrasing on employee speech outside instructional settings — including whether to use 'refrain' or stronger prohibitions — and asked staff to consult district counsel before finalizing language that balances free-speech concerns with district interests.
The Elkhorn Area School District policy committee spent substantial time on Policy 3310, which addresses employee expression in noninstructional settings. Members questioned draft phrasing that would ask employees to "refrain from making public expressions the employee knows to be false," with several board members arguing that the term "refrain" is too weak and preferring clearer language such as "should not" or, in some comments, "shall not."
Discussion touched explicitly on constitutional considerations and court precedent. One participant noted the Burlington line of First Amendment cases used in past local litigation and asked whether stronger prohibitions could create legal exposure. Taylor and other staff said the options in the packet were presented as choices and advised the board that legal counsel (referred to in discussion as Nola/Viola) should review any substantive change in wording to ensure compliance with constitutional protections and to avoid unintended disciplinary problems.
Members also sought clarity about the policy’s scope: the committee agreed to treat "noninstructional settings" as situations outside instructional time (for example, public protests or off-site speech) and distinguished that from speech to students during class time, which would be instructional and governed separately. Several board members recommended adding an explicit line instructing employees to make clear when they are speaking for themselves and not for the district.
The committee asked staff to request a legal review of proposed language changes and to return with recommended wording that balances district interests, employees' free-speech rights, and clear enforcement mechanisms. No formal adoption vote occurred at this meeting.
