SJC’S decision teaches timely civics lesson

A student and teacher fromlowell High School were two of the many from across the state who converged Wednesday on Beacon Hill to advocate for continued improvement and funding for civics education in schools.

As part ofmassachusetts Civics Learningweek, Lowellhigh senior Alicemwangi and history teacher Joseph Jussaume joined elected officials, aswell as students and teachers from other school districts, in support of more funding for the Civicprojects Trust Fund.

“My students had difficulty understanding how what they were learning every day in my classroomwas relevant to their everyday lives,” Jussaume told the newspaper.

Whenthe school beganto focus on real, applicable civics, Jussaume said, they becamemore engaged in trying to solve issues they see in their own communities.

Jussaume called for communities to havemore of what he called “civics days,” when students canpresent theirwork to communitymembers and elected officials. For that to happen, Jussaume said, more funding would be needed.

The Civic Projects Trust Fund, a grant programrunby thedepartment of Elementary and Secondary Education, helps students participating in nonpartisan civics projects. According to the DESE website, $700,000 is available throughthe grant. School districts can receive up to $60,000 in a grant depending on their size.

But sometimes, students can receive a real-world lesson about the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, free of charge.

One, courtesy of the Supreme Judicial Court, just happened to coincide with Civics Learning Week.

In a unanimous 29-page decision, the state’s highest court ruled that the use of “civility restraints’’ at public hearings violates free speech rights spelled out in the state Constitution, even when those words are

“rude, personal, and disrespectful to public figures.’’

The decision stems from a contentious December 2018 public hearing held by selectmen in the town of Southborough. At the meeting, a town official cited a local “civility code’’ to abruptly shut down a public-comment period after a resident made critical comments about a proposed property tax hike and repeated violations of the Open Meeting Law, the SJC said.

That was improper under a clause of the state Constitution, established in 1780, known as Article 19, that John Adams and his cousin Samuel Adams crafted together. The goal then, and now, is to assure the public has a voice in the operations of all levels of government, especially at the municipal level, the court ruled.

Today the government can set rules as to the time, place, and duration of comments at public hearings, but ithas no authority to engage in what it called “viewpoint discrimination’’ by silencing citizens, even when they liken anelected official tonazi leader Adolf Hitler.

“Although civility, of course, is to be encouraged, it cannot be required regarding the content ofwhatmay be said in a public comment session of a governmental meeting without violating both provisions of themassachusetts Declaration of Rights, which provide for a robust protection of public criticismof governmental action and officials,’’ the court said.

At thedec. 4, 2018, hearing, Southborough resident Louise Barron criticized the Board of Selectmen for repeated violations of the state’s Openmeeting Law and the prospect of a property tax increase, the SJC said.

Barron said it was unacceptable that the attorney general’s office had found repeated Open Meeting Law violations. “I know it’snot easy to be volunteers in townbut breaking the law is breaking the law,’’ Barron said, according to the SJC.

Selectmandaniel J. Kolenda toldbarronand others that the public comment period was being halted under the town’s “civility code,’’ which barred “slanderous’’ comments about public officials.

Barron objected to Kolenda’s abrupt decision to end the comment period and said you “need to stop being a Hitler.’’ Kolenda ordered the hearing ended, shut off the audio and video recorder, and shouted at Barron, “you’re disgusting,’’ and threatened to have her “escorted out’’ of the meeting, the SJC said.

A lawsuit and a lower court ruling in favor of the town ensued, which the SJC reversed.

Civility codes, safe places, and trigger warnings have the effect of eroding free-speech protections first codified in our state’s Constitution and later ratified by the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

As citizens, we have the right to appear before public bodies like a board of selectmen to voice our concerns, even if they might not be to some elected official’s liking.

If left unchallenged, this Southborough selectman’s abrupt decision to cut off a resident’s uncomfortable comments would have discouraged others in that community from voicing their concerns before any town board.

That’s not the kind of civics lesson we want emulated or repeated.

Thanks to the SJC’S ruling, the rights of citizens to express their opinions — within reason — before municipal boards supersedes a public official’s frayed feelings.