Staff expression policy before Tumwater School Board raises free speech concerns
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Board tabled Policy 5254 on April 23 to allow a staff-and-board work group.
- Protected speech may be disciplined if it harms district operations or job performance.
- Board members and staff expressed concern the policy’s vague language invites abuse.
Members of the Tumwater School District board of directors raised concerns at their last meeting about a proposed policy that states teachers and other staff members could be disciplined for speaking in a way that doesn’t align with the district, even when off the clock.
The board voted unanimously on April 23 to table the policy and allow a work group to convene and dive into its language and include more context and details.
Board member Ty Kuehl said during the meeting that the district has received numerous comments and emails regarding Policy 5254, which is meant to provide staff with “notice of district expectations regarding staff speech, in a variety of media, and to address staff speech that falls outside those expectations,” according to the policy.
He said there have been allegations from the public that board President Casey Taylor and previous board members have a master plan behind implementing such a policy. Kuehl said he’s the one who asked for the policy to be put on a board meeting agenda.
Kuehl said the request comes after hearing from community members that they want their schools to stay professional, and for conversations to stay appropriate. He said it isn’t to “siphon” anyone’s speech, and that “there isn’t a gestapo running around controlling teachers’ speech.”
Kuehl said this policy would be different from the Washington State School Directors’ Association’s Civility Policy, which he said is more about interpersonal speech. He said the policy he is recommending focuses on when and at what capacity staff, including administration and teachers, can speak as officials versus private citizens.
This would include using district resources, email, buildings, classrooms and social media.
“I think this fills important gaps,” he said. “The civility policy does not cover social media blurring of rules. It does not address the legal distinction between official capacity speech, which represents the district and can be regulated, and private speech.”
Kuehl said the policy balances first amendment rights with the district’s needs in order to maintain an orderly and effective workplace.
He said the policy gives “clear guidance that protected speech on public issues is still subject to discipline if it harms the district’s operations or the employee’s ability to do their job.”
Kuehl said previous comments to the board have stated that the policy would give the board direct power to discipline teachers and other staff members, which he said is ridiculous.
He said it’s a standard WSSDA policy and is discretionary. He said many districts of all sizes have adopted the policy, including liberal and conservative areas. The Olympia and North Thurston school districts both have staff expression policies
“As far as some master plan or some will of the board to use this in an inappropriate way, that just simply doesn’t exist,” he said.
He said if there are concerns about whether someone were to use the policy inappropriately to try and discipline or fire a staff member, he hopes they go through the proper channels to appeal that process or file a grievance, but in no way is it up to the board.
Director Julie Watts encouraged the board to vote no on the policy. She said they’ve heard loud and clear from Tumwater educators that they’re concerned about their free speech rights.
“I’ve received more outreach on this particular policy than I’ve received on anything since I’ve been here on the school board, albeit not a very long time,” she said.
Watts shared a few examples of what she’s heard from staff members. She said staff are worried the policy will be abused.
“They’re concerned it will be used against them,” she said. “It’s creating fear and suspicion. They don’t understand what problem we’re trying to solve here.”
Watts said some believe it’s connected to former board member Darby Kaikkonen informally complaining about a staff member and requesting Superintendent Kevin Bogatin to intervene.
The Olympian has asked Bogatin and district spokesperson Laurie Wiedenmeyer for information about that complaint.
“One person described this as ... driving a deeper wedge between the school board and the staff,” Watts said.
She said the policy and its standards are vague, and vague standards ignite abuse. She said other school districts might be able to muddle through a vague policy if there’s trust between staff, the board and administration. However, she said addressing the current lack of trust in Tumwater schools should take precedence over any policy the board considers.
Watts requested that the board take some time to have more conversations with educators and staff members about the policy before adoption. Director Rob Warner agreed that the policy is vague and needs a rewrite.
Director Melissa Beard said she’s worried about employees being responsible for public perception versus actual conduct. She said her biggest concern is regarding employee speech when they’re off the clock and are private citizens. She said it isn’t clear what the problem is that is needing to be addressed.
Bogatin said there isn’t a clear answer from WSSDA regarding why the policy was developed in the first place, nor why it’s been supported by dozens of districts across the state. Taylor said it’s not necessarily to solve any problem, but to prevent any in the future. He said it’s not connected to Kaikkonen’s informal complaint, but that it’s ultimately about reducing distractions.
Watts said that before the board goes infringing on someone’s first amendment rights, that they should have a clear sense of the kind of speech or situations that would represent a significant disruption to district operations.
Bogatin said a work group involving staff and two board members will dive into these questions and work to include more information in a future policy reading. The directors ultimately tabled the policy for that work to be done, and there’s currently no timeline for bringing a new policy back to the board.
.jpg)