Community Conversation — Agenda item for tonight’s DCSD BoE meeting that proposes changes to the public comment policy is concerning

The following is part of DougCo Collective’s “Community Conversations” and was written by a Douglas County community member (parent, student, teacher/staff or community member).  The intent of “Community Conversations” is to give members of the Douglas County community an opportunity to contribute to the larger DCSD conversation with their lived experiences and perspectives. 

Estimated Read Time: 4 minutes

Author: Connie Ingram - Community member and parent of two DCSD graduates

Colorado is a local control state, and district school boards are elected locally. Citizens are limited to addressing the local school board publicly for up to three minutes of the time allotted at regularly scheduled board meetings, typically held twice a month except during the winter and summer breaks. Depending on the agenda length and the number of individuals who register in advance to speak at a given board meeting, citizens may be further limited to as little as one minute to address the school board.

Douglas County School Board File: BEDH PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS provides the rules adopted by the school board, regulating when and how public comment can be presented to the board. The policy states that

“…the Board desires to hear the diverse viewpoints from a broad spectrum of citizens throughout the district on issues that impact the educational needs of students and also needs to conduct its business in an orderly and efficient manner…” 

To accommodate individuals who are unable to speak in person, a virtual option using Zoom technology was added. There are numerous reasons why an individual might prefer to speak remotely, such as transportation, scheduling conflicts, inclement weather, illness or disability.

Over the last several years, it has also become necessary for some individuals to prefer to have their public comment read by a surrogate or representative, thus protecting their privacy while allowing their comments to be presented to the board. For example, teachers unfortunately have reason to believe they will experience retaliation from administrators or community members for their comments regarding the state of their teaching environments. A teacher might wish to express concern about the lack of resources in their building or issues with students, other staff members, or administrators. Having a representative read their comment allows a teacher to safely express concerns. Similarly, a student or community member in a marginalized group may not feel comfortable speaking for themselves, but their voice should still be heard. Having a surrogate or representative present these statements to the board allows these voices to be heard while preserving their anonymity.

Opponents of this policy have argued that, even if the policy of having a surrogate speaker was discontinued, such commenters could still anonymously present their views by attending board meetings incognito. However, this is not a desirable alternative. Allowing a speaker to attend a board meeting incognito raises reasonable concerns about the safety of other attendees, district personnel, and board members. For example, during the 2022-23 school year, this practice was allowed by the DCSD School Board President Mike Peterson on two occasions. This was unsettling, if not frightening, for many community members in attendance, as the public comment provided by that individual did not include productive feedback for the board, but ramblings of conspiracy theories and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. Moreover, requiring an (unmasked) surrogate to present comments, rather than an incognito speaker, helps ensure that the comments are not so insidious that no reasonable person would want their name attached to them.

A representative speaking on behalf of a teacher or any other community member presents no risk or cause for concern among other attendees, while safeguarding the author’s privacy and allowing their concerns to be expressed to their elected officials.

On the agenda for the BoE meeting scheduled for Tuesday, Aug. 22, is a proposed change to the public comment policy that would remove the ability of any citizen to speak on behalf of an anonymous individual:

“The Board president or the presiding chair of the meeting shall be responsible for recognizing all speakers, who shall properly identify themselves by name, city or town of residence, and whether they are speaking for themselves, another named individual, or a group.”

Requiring an individual to be “named” removes the ability of that individual who wishes to remain anonymous for any reason to protect their identity and avoid retaliation. 

For what reason would Peterson and the  “Kids First” directors want to restrict that individual’s ability to speak safely? Do they simply wish to silence the voices of teachers?

It is not a stretch to think our school district is following in the footsteps of Woodland Park, where teachers and staff are being silenced. As Jenny Brundin reported on Colorado Public Radio, “Woodland Park school board has ‘chilled’ free speech” by revising a “policy that punishes school-based employees if they speak publicly as private citizens about matters of public concern about the school district.”

DDSD employees are justified in believing a similar gag order could be headed their way.