Morton educators urge board to reject broad directives on off‑duty conduct

Dozens of Morton educators used the board’s public‑comment period to urge trustees to reject or substantially narrow proposed directives that would allow discipline for private, off‑duty communication.

Benjamin Ginzel, president of the Morton Education Association, told the board the union’s membership is worried less about the initial incident and more about how the district responded. “The concern is about the precedent being established for every employee in this district,” Ginzel said, asking the board to review the directives’ language, scope and precedent and to discuss the matter in closed session.

Several teachers who spoke echoed that theme. Brian Diers, a Morton High School social‑studies teacher, said the measures rely on broad, subjective phrases such as “professional and appropriate relationships at all times” and create uncertainty about enforcement. “If these directives stand in this situation, what does that mean for the rest of us?” Diers asked, and he urged the board to vote no and work with educators to craft narrower policy.

Other staff — including junior‑high and high‑school teachers and support staff — said the directives have already produced fear and damaged trust between employees and administration. Patty Massalia, a social‑emotional‑learning teacher and special‑education department head, said the text message at the heart of the matter was sent during summer break from a personal device and was not unlawful or threatening in nature. “It was a private conversation, not a reflection of job performance,” she said.

Speakers framed the issue as one of balance: uphold high professional standards while protecting employees’ rights and private lives. Several warned that broadly worded directives could chill community participation, deter prospective hires and invite litigation. “Our constitutional protections do not disappear when we become public employees,” one commenter said.

Board President Rudd and district administration acknowledged the comments and thanked speakers for their time; the board did not take a public vote on a disciplinary action during the meeting. Trustees repeatedly said they value the relationship with staff and asked administrators to bring the concerns into internal review and legal consideration.

The immediate procedural next step recorded at the meeting was a motion to enter closed session for personnel, litigation and property matters, which passed by roll call. The board has not released any final decision on personnel discipline or the directive language; several speakers asked the board to consider whether the directive should be modified or rescinded before applying it broadly.