November 23, 2022
Challenges for the 2022-2023 School Year, Part 1:

Unruly Fans & Parents at School Board Meetings

Strang School & Public Records Law in Wisconsin

At this year’s CESA 11 Legal Summit, Kirk Strang spoke extensively about the challenges Wisconsin school districts are facing in the 2022-23 school year. 

In this four-part series, we’ll share what Kirk had to say about challenges associated with:

  • Part 1: School Board Meetings
  • Part 2: Public Access to School Grounds
  • Part 3: Gender Identity
  • Part 4: Curriculum & Library Materials

Let’s get started with our first installment of the series …

Strategies for School Board Meetings to Improve Safety & Diminish Disruption

AKA: Angry mobs, virtual meetings, OML subject matter requirements, & other trials of the day.

The following strategies have been developed in accordance with Wisconsin’s open meetings and public records law, as well as general school law. Our close relationships with many Wisconsin school districts has given us the opportunity to learn about their specific challenges, and our knowledge of Wisconsin school law has allowed us to provide the following sustainable solutions.

If your school board meetings have become a free-for-all, or if you’re simply looking to be proactive to keep meetings safe and efficient, the following strategies can help.

  1. Virtual Meetings To Avoid Disruption
    Consider Virtual meetings for board member safety and protection.

A school board meeting must be “accessible” to the public.

  • This standard does not require that school board members attend the meeting in person, at least not as a per se matter.
  • Access can be delivered if the school district provides online access, provides accommodation to individuals that require it in order to access the meeting, and provides a viewing site for individuals who cannot afford devices that are otherwise required to see and hear the meeting.
  1. Understanding When Is a Police Presence is Preferable
  • Where we anticipate a loud, angry mob, especially when there are “warring sides,” and both plan to attend the meeting.
  • When public comment periods have been unruly and the optics of a uniformed officer help maintain order.
  • When there is a genuine need to protect the safety of school board members, administrators, and/or members of the public.
  • Officers that attend the meeting are in a better position to write citations when it is warranted, because they witnessed the behavior. This also can alleviate the need for board members or administrators to be witnesses to the infractions committed by citizens.

Security Concerns
Some of the more common security concerns can be broken up into to categories:

  1. “True threats”
  • Inherently menacing symbols, gestures, or epithets.
  • Threats to another person’s safety.
  • Threats to property.
  1. Restricting an individual’s access to school district premises and functions.
  • Appropriate grounds for restricting parent/guardian access to school district premises.
  • Deference that is granted to school officials’ determinations to bar a particular individual’s access to the premises.
  • Rights and responsibilities of the school district acting in loco parentis.
  1. 3. Solutions to End Comments (either virtually or in-person)
    Rules for public comment periods (some old, some inspired by the course of events).
  • A school board has the authority to prohibit certain behaviors or comments and to do so does not violate a speaker’s free speech rights.
    This is true in the event of:
  • A true threat
  • Comments that are reasonably understood to constitute one or more complaints about an employee or group of employees, or an attack on one or more employees
  • Any personally identifiable references to a student
  • Comments that are primarily for the purpose of attacking an individual (this forum is for an exchange of ideas, not for exchanging slanderous remarks).
  • Comments by school board members (can school board members lawfully participate in a period of public comment?).
  • Are there sanctions for violating the rules that have been adopted for public comment periods and on what standards should be applied (e.g., “egregious violations”)?
  • Require commentators to stand.
  • Residency requirement?
  • Limitation structure: minutes per speaker, number of speakers, total number of minutes, on agenda subjects only or on any subject the commentator wants to address, residency or other substantive requirement, etc.
  • Establishing new “rules” for managing public comment
  • Remain seated
  • No waving or hand gesturing
  • No vocal interference with speaker during their time to address the school board
  • No disruption or incitement to disrupt
  • No taunting, ridicule, or other deliberate demonstrative behavior directed at others or their views
  • Conduct reasonably understood to be an attempt to influence or impair a speaker’s ability to deliver their comments
  • Robert’s Rules: Are school boards ready to have Robert’s Rules strictly enforced for all matters?
  • Physical strategies
  • Place the school board on an auditorium stage or in a similarly recessed location. The “moat” effect does seem to keep everyone separated.
  • Have an alternative route for board members to take to be seated for the meeting and keep the public away from that route (the school district has to allow access to meetings, not to every conceivable place in its facilities).
  • Use video recording technology placement and features to discourage unruly behavior.
  • Require those in attendance to sign in, not just those who register to speak.
  • Use social distancing if feasible in light of OML access to meeting requirements.
  • Ventilation (partisan and non-partisan).

This brings us to the conclusion of Part 1 of this series. In our next installment, we’ll dive into the challenges associated with public access to school grounds.

Additional articles in the Challenges for the 2022-2023 School Year series: