Few local school boards restrict comments
Nearly a decade ago, Kevin Squires and a friend devised a plan to add a student member to the West Mifflin Area school board to amplify their peers’ voices in the district’s decisionmaking process. It worked, and he became the board’s first student representative.
Today, the experience informs his perspective as he continues to attend most school board meetings as a West Mifflin resident, but as a private citizen.
It’s also why he has felt especially troubled since Jan. 10, when the board announced it was removing the public comment period from its monthly work sessions.
“The rationale for having a student representative is very similar to the need for public comment,” said Mr. Squires, now 26 and a University of Pittsburgh research scientist. “You want to give the board input from as many places as you can. They’re there to serve students, and should use those thoughts and perspectives to help make decisions.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania contends the change violates the state’s Sunshine Act, although the district solicitor and the Pennsylvania School Boards Association dispute that.
Either way, removing resident input from work sessions appears to put West Mifflin Area in the minority among local school districts. An informal survey found most boards appear to allow public comment at both voting meetings and work sessions.
The decision comes as West Mifflin Area navigates a process that would allow it to fire
“Anytime a board gathers to consider public business, they have to allow public comment.”
its superintendent, a push that has magnified divisions within the community at a number of tempestuous public meetings recently. But that’s not why they limited public comment, board leaders say.
Earlier this month, board Vice President Anthony DiCenzo said the change was consistent with the protocol of the West Mifflin Borough Council, which also bans public comment from caucus meetings. He described public comment during work sessions as “kind of a luxury.”
Board President David Marshall said Tuesday that the board sees the change as a way to maximize its time during work sessions. He noted the noxious tone of some recent public comments, which have included personal attacks and false accusations against board members and district employees.
“It’s just to make them go smoother, without breaking the law,” he said. “Our attorneys were the ones who suggested it.”
Witold “Vic” Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, contends that the district is failing to follow provisions of the state Sunshine Act. “Anytime a board gathers to consider public business, they have to allow public comment,” he said.
He added: “It’s democracy, and they’ve got a law. I’m sorry, democracy’s not always convenient.”
But school district solicitor Gary Matta pointed out that residents may continue to address the board president and superintendent at the beginning of regular voting meetings.
Mr. Matta proposed the change after members complained that they were hearing residents repeat the same issues at both work sessions and voting meetings. “My comment was that you only need to have public comment prior to the vote,” he said.
Pennsylvania School Board Association spokeswoman Annette Stevenson agreed. “An opportunity for public comment is not legally required at workshop or committee meetings,” she wrote in an email.
The Sunshine Act holds that boards may delay the required public comment period to the next regular meeting if it “determines that there is not sufficient time at a meeting for residents” to comment. Mr. Squires said West Mifflin Area work sessions typically draw two or three speakers, who are limited to three minutes each.
At least two other Allegheny County school districts restrict community input outside of voting meetings. Pittsburgh Public Schools holds a separate monthly hearing, which regularly draws dozens of speakers, reserved specifically for public comment.
The Clairton City School District, which enrolls fewer than 800 students, restricts comment at workshops, but the board may waive that rule, depending on the case, board President Richard Livingston said. The long-standing rule predates his 17 years on the board, he said.
Most local school boards, though, allow time
— Witold “Vic” Walczak, American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania
for residents to weigh in at all public meetings. All but one of the 16 school boards that responded to queries from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette this week indicated that they do not place limits on public comment at non-voting meetings.
“You’ve got to give people an opportunity to have their say, and ask for same respect in terms of what we’re trying to do moving forward with decisionmaking,” said David Oberdick, an Avonworth school board member of 12 years.
The Bethel Park school board even allows nonresidents to address the board, as long as they have filed the proper paperwork beforehand, board President Donna Cook said. The board does have some restrictions: Speakers are asked to limit remarks to two minutes and to make comments rather than ask questions.
In East Allegheny, board President John Savinda said residents may comment at voting meetings and work sessions, although he lamented that too few people attend the latter. Still, robust feedback from community members is “the only way to make the system work,” he wrote in an email.
Steel Valley board President Jim Bulger said there have been situations in which public comments have changed his opinion on issues, including the time a parent gave a particularly cogent defense of broadening the dress code to include navy blue pants in addition to the standard black ones.
“We’re probably one of the more lenient boards in terms of letting public comment at our meetings, both our workshops and voting meetings,” he said. “We let folks talk.”
Mr. Squires, who estimated that he has addressed the West Mifflin Area board four or five times, said the work session comment period allows district officials and board members time before a vote to answer questions that may involve additional research.
“If you can only ask those questions at the voting meetings, it’s kind of a moot point at that point,” Mr. Squires said.
Mr. Marshall, the West Mifflin Area board president, said residents are still free to directly contact him, his board colleagues and district officials if they have questions or comments before votes. He said he had received push back about the change, including some from his supporters who have raised concerns over the Sunshine Act.
His response is simple: “If you think that, please come to our regular session and bring it up, and I’ll get your information.”