Dealing Appropriately with Speakers That Violate Board Policy...
Should a member of the audience be able to usurp our meetings, utilizing antics and shenanigans that are disruptive, divisive, and antagonistic?
…..I think not, and it is for that reason that I’m astonished by what transpired and what was allowed to occur at last night’s school board meeting. I spoke to the board’s attorney, secretary, and to the superintendent of schools about what was coming. This was not a surprise, yet it still was allowed to occur. Astonishing…..
Because it was my turn in the rotation to select a guest to bring the pre-meeting prayer, I selected a Rabbi from Pensacola’s Temple Beth-El. Rabbi Joel Fleecop was delivering a very respectful prayer to those of us assembled for the meeting, and he was rudely interrupted by a member of the audience who began chanting and praying loudly on a rug right next to the podium.
A member of the audience that spoke subsequently chastised the Chair for not stopping this loud and distracting stunt; the speaker said that because of the chanting, he could not hear the Rabbi’s prayer.
Nothing was done to stop this chanting, which was the first disappointment of the night.
Later, when this individual who had interrupted the invited Rabbi had his three minutes to speak, he came right out and started insulting me and my invited guest, deridingly referring to the Rabbi with an anti-Semitic barb, calling him a “Token-Jew”
nothing was done to derail this man and his ad hominem attacks.
When this member of the audience insulted me, insinuating that I “used” my guest as a prop, I maintained my bearing, fully expecting some leadership from the dais and the chair to shut down this personal attack against me.
Didn’t happen.
We have a rule against addressing board members other than the Chair, and this infraction was not addressed.
We also have a rule against personal attacks, which also went unenforced.
A total loss of control.
Very disappointing.
It is one thing for this individual that loves disrupting our meetings to try to push the envelope—I half expect him to do so.
The big disappointment is that he was allowed to do so in blatant contravention to board rules of decorum-----that I did not expect.
So when this person got finished insulting me, my guest, and then he decided to start reciting a satanic prayer, I walked right out on him, right out of the room. I wasn’tgoing to listen to a minute, not a nano-second more of this guy’s vitriolic garbage, and I won’t in the future either if he is going to blatantly walk all over our rules unabashed.
Additionally, I will not sit silently if this individual comes to our meeting and tries these sorts of stunts again and is not restrained. Out of deference to the Chair and the rules of the board, I was silent through this blatant violation of the rules. I won’t be next time.
I’m not indulging this disruptive person, and I never will.
The issues that transpired last night will be a subject I put on the agenda for an upcoming workshop so that, hopefully, we won't let things get out of hand at future meetings.
MY RESPONSE (too long for his blog, but I emailed it to him):
As the speaker in question, I look forward to your next meeting, when I can address your concerns head on.
Meantime, keep a few things in mind:
1) Legally, you may not inhibit the free expression of religion, even if you disagree with it. Your attorney said as much at an earlier meeting. This is basic Constitutional law.
2) The meeting doesn't actually start until after the invocation and public comments. You set it up this way so the invocation wouldn't 'officially' be part of the meeting. Months ago, your chair agreed that I may walk and talk during this time, though it might be rude. I've asked your attorney to clarify this. She will not. As far as I can see, like the school bell, no gavel means no need to be silent.
3) By the common definition**(below) and by your own email comments, the term 'token jew' was perfectly appropriate. If it disparaged anything, it was your reason for bringing the rabbi... as a token. From your email: "Tonight we will have a guest bring the pre-meeting prayer that is not of the Christian faith, he is a Jewish Rabbi and a great person. WE ARE DOING THIS TO BE INCLUSIVE AND DIVERSE." You brought the token, so you are responsible. I simply defined it correctly - not as a slur, but an impactful statement of truth. If you wanted diversity, you should have accepted any of several non-Biblical invocation speakers who have offered, but will get no audience as long as school board members have discretion to refuse us.
4) The good rabbi and I spoke later. He was not offended, except perhaps that he was chosen while and other religious minorities were rejected. I asked that you make him aware of the reason for his presence. You did not. Now he knows.
5) My chanting was relatively quiet - just above a whisper and just enough so I didn't have to hear the prayer. You didn't hear it and the complainer couldn't hear it well enough to understand it. I was not 'next to the dais', right in front of the audience. If you don't want me to pray during this time, quit imposing your prayer and I will sit in silence. Likewise, if you don't want an alternative prayer during the public comments, don't force your prayer on the audience. Just do it on your own time. Even Jesus said not to make a public display of prayer (Matthew 6:5-6).
6) At the September meeting about this subject, your attorney suggested I bring minority invocations during the public forum. I have accepted her invitation and I will offer their a variety of prayers until you stop asking the audience to pray at a public meeting until it stops. Such called to prayer are not legal or appropriate - especially for a school system.
7) The only inappropriate speech was when the audience recited the Lord's Prayer during my public forum comments. At that point, the chair should have paused the timer and settled the audience so I could continue.
8) If you had listened to prayer by the Satanic Temple, you would know it was not offensive or vitriolic in any way. It called on many values common relative to education. Unless 'Hail Satan' or 'Luciferian' has become the Muhammed cartoon of America (verbotten), they are just words. You should not have left the room. That was immature as best.
Jeff,
You are getting into a lot of 1st amendment issues - not the least of which is your refusal to allow minority invocations from traditions you don't agree with. This could become quite litigious. Do you really want to spend school board funds suppressing religious equality and imposing your faith on school board meetings? I hope not. I would think twice about what free speech and which religious expression you allow and which you don't. Further favoritism would be even more unconstitutional.
I will continue to stand up for my rights. So far, civil disobedience has not been necessary. However, I will gladly take that step if needed. No court would convict me for praying in my own way while a school board recites it's favorite kinds of prayer. As I've said, I won't stand for my rights to be violated.
Rather than fighting my free speech and religious expression, why not drop the provocation - invocation prayers? Your student handbook spells out an inclusive policy (a moment of silence). It's good enough for the schools, why not use it for the schools leaders?
Rather than chastising me, A BETTER USE use of the school board's time would be a thorough discussion of the invocation - as a policy and a legal liability. After 6 months of asking, isn't time you put it in writing? I hope the board will look beyond the yea-sayers and consider whether there is case law to support SCHOOL BOARD prayer. SPOILER: There is not. Galloway only applies to City/County/State government - NOT TO SCHOOL BOARDS. And you don't honor Galloway anyway (by refusing minorities selectively). Any independent attorney could tell you this. Yet... some SB members continue the illegal and inappropriate mixing of church and state by imposing your approved prayers and rejecting unwanted prayer offers. That needs to change.
**According to Wikipedia, Tokenism is the policy and practice of making a perfunctory gesture towards the inclusion of members of minority groups. It is the effort of including a token intended to create the appearance of social inclusiveness and diversity and so deflect accusations of social discrimination.
No comments:
Post a Comment