Teachers were afraid they would lose their jobs if they told anyone what they felt about board candidates or issues.
Though the message did not stray from the law, teachers who talked to the Turner Report said it gave the impression that their actions were going to be watched closely by Ms. Smith, the enforcement arm of the C. J. Huff Administration.
Teachers contacted their Missouri State Teachers Association (MSTA) and Missouri National Education Association (MNEA) representatives to find out what they could legally do. Essentially, the only thing teachers are barred from doing by law is participating in the management of a campaign. They can put signs in their yards, tell their neighbors who they support, and even help a campaign, as long as it is not in a management capacity.
Of course, when you know that you are being watched and that you might suffer repercussions for doing something entirely legal...well, the administration is counting that teachers will continue to remain silent and those who are opposed to the Huff Administration will continue to do what they have done for the past two years- resign and look for work elsewhere. It would not seem to be a coincidence that the first time Administration chooses to issue a warning about teachers' political activities coincides with the first time anyone has mounted a serious challenge to the way C. J. Huff has run the district.
This is the message originally sent by Tina Smith:
We would like to take this opportunity to remind employees that District resources, including, but not limited to, copiers, fax machines, phones and the Joplin Schools' email system are not to be used to urge a vote for or against any candidate, group of candidates or ballot issue. You should not include any information in your publications or materials sent to parents urging people to support or oppose candidates or ballot issues.
Additionally, in regard to School Board Elections, State law prohibits teachers from participating in the management of a campaign for the election or defeat of a member of the Board of Education that employs such teacher.
We encourage our staff members to review the Missouri Revised Statutes and the Board of Education Policies listed at the top of this page.
The following constitute summary guidelines related to campaigns. "Work hours" generally means any time an employee is engaged in the performance of his or her duties as an employee of the district, whether during or outside of regular school hours.
This is the guidance provided to the teachers by MSTA:
The federal and state constitutions both provide school district employees with the right of freedom of speech concerning matters of public interest. This includes the employees’ rights to participate in campaigns for school board candidates and to express their views on various board candidates.
The Missouri statutes only place two restrictions on school district employee participation in school board elections. By law, a teacher is not allowed to take part in the management of the campaign to elect or defeat a board candidate to the board of which he or she is employed. MO RS 268.130.
Otherwise, we believe that as long as the school employees, including teachers, express their election views or work on campaigns on their own time and not as part of their official duties, do not make use of school district property, and do not disrupt the workplace, they are allowed to participate in campaigns and elections, and are free from work reprisals or retaliation by their administrators or board members.
In summary, in a school district in which the employees are employed, the only limitation on their constitutional rights to be involved in the campaign for or against a board member is that teachers cannot be part of the management of a campaign. Teachers and all other staff can be involved in the other aspects of the campaign and non-teachers can be involved in the management of the campaign. Finally, all categories of employees can engage in all types of campaign work for or against a school board member in a district which does not employ them.
If you have further questions please please feel free to contact the MSTA legal services department.
- See more at: http://www.msta.org/can-they-do-that-campaigning-for-school-board-candidates/#sthash.BaICr8t2.dpuf
11 comments:
Hmm. But it is acceptable for current and potential Board members to use district resources while they wait to sign up to run again? Isn't that hypocritical? They could've stayed warm in their cars at their expense. And, rumor has it that they called the district techs and got passwords to the computers so they could use them while they were there. That, certainly, is at least unethical if not illegal.
Unless the patrons of this district join me in voting these arrogant people out of office, things will never improve for our children. Tina Smith's explanation does indeed have a threatening tone, and it is not as clear as the explanation from the MSTA, which does observe that even our children's teachers have the right to freedom of speech. Maybe if the district would stop running them off, we might get to know a few of them before our children graduate.
Shame on R8!
The Globe isn't the only one "pushing their own agenda "! It takes a professional journalist to accurately report on issues with a completely unbiased approach. I have yet to find anyone capable of this regarding the school board and the city council.
You are correct, Mr. Turner, in pointing out that this is the first time a true challenge to a sitting superintendent has occurred, at least in recent years. I taught in the district for a long, long time, and no one ever thought to tell us what we could or couldn't do for an election. Common sense told us it would be unwise to be too obvious about supporting or opposing a board contender, and anyone should know that using school resources for personal purposes is called stealing. But no one ever threatened us, which reflects that Huff knows he is in dangerous territory. Perhaps it would have been wiser not to have alienated his staff to the degree that the thinks they will work against him, that is, if they are not fleeing their posts altogether. Being intimidated, harassed, threatened, overworked and underpaid does not build consensus with employees. The district is in bad shape, and I am very saddened by this. It was in good shape when Huff received it. Time for fresh new faces everywhere but in the classrooms!
11:35 is correct. It is hypocritical for the Board candidates to use district resources for their campaign purposes when a teacher would be fired for the same thing. How are they going to enforce that rule, now that they have set a precedence for the acceptability of breaking it? In the same sense, how can they ever discipline a student for being under the influence when one of their own is arrested for a DUI, and then fights it rather than take responsibility for his behavior? Saying one thing and doing the opposite is the definition of hypocrisy. It does not set the standard desired for the district. But then, this district no longer has standards, does it? Otherwise, Ms. Smith, with no experience in education would not be Huff's #2 person, and Mike Johnson, with a record of harassment and bullying, would no longer be employed. And CJ Huff, who has taken a district with a long standing record of being accredited with distinction but is now tottering on total destruction because of his poor leadership, would have been sent down the road a long time ago. No standards are in place. Obviously.
Kind of interesting then, that school board member, Mike Landis, has been seen and heard on the campus of Kelsey Norman Elementary, pressuring teachers as to who they should and should NOT vote for in the upcoming school board election. I do NOT think that is legal, but he was doing it, nonetheless. I think the school board is really afraid that honest, civic-minded individuals might get elected to the board, which will put a kink in the good old boy system presently in place. Be afraid, Joplin School Board. Be very afraid!
Remember to truly to be free of tyranny vote out the tyrants.
IF YOU DON'T VOTE YOU CAN'T COMPLAIN.
I'm not seeing any difference between the Smith email and the other statement. They both say the same thing. Smith's email reminded staff of the law. How is that intimidation?
Don't use school property to campaign. Ok, thanks for reminding me. Don't campaign during your contracted work hours. Ok, thanks for reminding me.
There is no mention of after hours or personal property. I don't see the purpose of this post. I normally agree with most of Turner's posts, but this one boggles me.
4:16 pm I agree. It is silly to read that email as threatening in any manner whatsoever.
If you worked in the Joplin Schools, you would know why it was considered a threat. It was Tina Smith's way of saying we are watching you and none of us believe that they would not retaliate if we supported a candidate who was not one of the favored ones. The teachers I work with took it as a threat. Mr. Turner was absolutely right.
"...and are free from work reprisals or retaliation by their administrators or board members..." NOT IN R8
This isn't the entire email that Tina Smith sent out. Someone should post the entire thing. The entire email leaves no doubt about their intention. I doubt that Turner had all of it. The implication was that teachers could not help in a board race in any capacity--only superintendents can do that, according to Smith.. No one working for R8 who read that email has any doubt as to what the results will be if they are perceived to be working for an anti-Huff candidate. Ms Smith will use her powers to have said employee escorted out of the building on a trumped up charge and then the employee will be terminated. It's happened too often to not be believed.
Post a Comment