Parents in the schoolhouse - 1st Amendment Rights

The Plano Independent School District has agreed to pay plaintiffs $400,000 in attorney's fees as part of an offer of judgment ending a four-year legal battle over the distribution of materials at public schools.

The offer was signed by the district's attorneys, Richard Abernathy and Charles Crawford, on Nov. 13 and signed by the plaintiff's attorney, Charles Bundren, Nov. 18. The district had filed appeal on Nov. 10 from a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that its policy was unconstitutional. That appeal will now be dropped. The offer of judgment includes a declaration that the PISD policy of requiring prior approval of materials distributed at two math nights on the topic of the connected math program was unconstitutionally applied under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. However, despite that declaration, school board members and Abernathy said they still do not believe the policy is unconstitutional. "I have mixed emotions, to be honest. I feel very strongly about this," Trustee Duncan Webb said. "I would love to have a shot at the Supreme Court." Board President Mary Beth King was even more adamant in her denial of district liability in the case. "In my opinion it was not unconstitutionally applied," she said. Attorney for the plaintiff, Charles Bundren, said that response was "ridiculous. "That's absolutely false," he said. "The offer of judgment is a confession. It was decided by the Fifth Circuit Court. To sit there and say no, we don't agree with that, that we violated the law, is ridiculous. They are speaking out of both sides of their mouth." Bundren said the offer of judgment is not a settlement. The difference is that in a settlement offer neither party accepts liability in the case. "The critical thing here is this is not a settlement offer. They offered to confess a judgment to the people and the court that they violated the law," he said. "They also agreed to confess a judgment of $400,000 to the plaintiffs. The reason that's important is for the district to actually make an offer of confession of judgment they are admitting that they violated the constitution. That's a confession that is made in front of a federal judge." Abernathy said the declaration is merely an agreement that the Fifth Circuit ruled that the policy was unconstitutional, not that they agree with that ruling. "In order to have a judgment signed by the court we have to have a basis for it," he said. "(Bundren)'s right that there will be a judgment entered." Abernathy further stated that the fact that the plaintiffs agreed to the offer means they are admitting that the lawsuit had no merit. "They're saying that their contentions are without merit by accepting this offer of judgment," he said. Southern Methodist University associate professor of law Bill Bridge said that by signing the offer of judgment the district is the party admitting wrongdoing. "They can spin it any way they want to," he said. "They're agreeing that their policy is unconstitutional." Plaintiff Kenny Johnson said it is clear who came out on top in the offer of judgment. "The winners are parents and teachers," he said. "They now have access to pass out material and the district can no longer require prior approval. The losers are the board members and administrators that continued to pursue the case. The courts said it was unconstitutional and they should accept that. The fact that they admitted that but still won't accept it says a lot." The case has statewide significance because several hundred school districts use the same policy regarding the distribution of materials in classrooms written by the Texas Association of School Boards. Webb said a change in policy will be coming soon, possibly even ending the practice of allowing non-school-related activities to be conducted at Plano schools after hours. "According to the Fifth Circuit, if someone goes to a meeting and they distribute highly offensive material we can't stop it," he said. "That's why I would support closing the campus to after-school activity. A more formal change in this policy will have to occur fairly soon." The district's attorneys fees were $230,000, of which the district paid 20 percent. TASB paid the $400,000 for the plaintiff's attorney's fees.

Name: John Schaefer Date: Nov, 24 2003 I cannot believe that the PISD administration STILL thinks it was right to stifle dissent to its policies!!! The issue is a First Admendment issue and is an exmple of how aloof most of PISD individuals are in executing their responsibilities.

Name: Robert Willich Date: Nov, 24 2003 After wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars and having to admit it violated the Constitution, Mr. Webb and Ms King still do not get it. Ms King may have an excuse, but as a lawyer and member of the Bar, Mr. Webb does not. Well, Mr. Webb, prior restraint is always difficult to sustain. PISD did not meet the burden of proof for such sustainment. Since both of these individuals terms in ofice end next year, I beleive that it is time to send them home. We cannot afford them anymore. It matters not which pot of money was used to pay the costs involved, it all originally came from the pockets of the citizens of PISD.

This is the first Federal case law on the rights of parents to speak in the schoolhouse in after-hours meetings. The case went twice to 5th Circuit in New Orleans. The two Opinions are posted on the 5th Circuit web page, at the search-dates shown below.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/OpinHome.cfm

07/23/2001 case name: Chiu 07/15/2003 case name Chiu

The event was written up in our FINE local newpaper, The Plano Star-Courier.

Texas public schools used to require parents to have school principal prior approval of printed material distributed on school property, in evening parent meetings. 5th Circuit, in New Orleans, ruled that the regulation was unconstitutional when enforced.

The event was a "Parents Math Night" in Plano, Texas in 1997. The meeting was to tell parents about a new math curriculum, the Connected Math Project. I was circulating petitions for parents to request a conventional arithmetic option, and flyers telling that CMP was controversial, in that it was the central issue in a 1995 Palo Alto school board election. The meeting presenter actually asked me to leave (!!!) He was surprised when I refused. It was accepted for trial as a First Amendment case by the U.S. District Court in Sherman, Texas. The Dark District twice appealed the case to 5th Circuit. I'll convert the 5th Circuit's Opinion to html and post it here tomorrow. Al

The Sons of Confederate Veterans sometimes have trouble
with folks who don’t like the Confederate Battleflag.
Here are some Federal opinions on that and the First Amendment

http://www.scv.org/legalLibrary.php

Cheers,

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.