Case Law Update: Citizens not Guaranteed Right to Speak at Public Meetings

On March 10, 2010, the First District Court of Appeal issued an opinion addressing citizens’ right to speak at public meetings.  In Keesler v. Community Maritime Park Associates, Inc., Case No. 1D09-1659 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), the Court held that Section 286.011(1), Florida Statutes, grants citizens the right to attend public meetings but does not convey a right to speak.  In its reasoning, the Court rejected the Appellants’ argument that the phrase “open to the public” in Section 286.011(1) means that citizens have a right to speak.  The Court further explained that whether citizens should be granted a right to speak at public meetings is an issue more appropriate for the Legislature or other local public officials.

To view the entire opinion in Keesler, please visit the First District Court of Appeals’ website at: http://opinions.1dca.org/written/opinions2010/03-10-2010/09-1659.pdf.

Possible Pay Cuts for School Board Members

In an attempt to bolster Florida’s education budget, the Florida Senate Education Appropriations Committee recently recommended that school board members’ salaries be cut to $29,000.00.  Florida’s legislators currently earn $29,000.00.  The proposed salary cut would add an estimated $1.5 million to Florida’s education budget.

Source: http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/mar/11/111557/proposal-would-cut-salaries-school-board-members/news-politics/; http://www.floridatrend.com/article.asp?aID=52640

Florida Senate Bill Ties Teacher Evaluations to Students’ Performance on Exams

A controversial Senate Bill relating to teacher evaluations has been receiving intense media attention.  SB 0006, introduced by John Thrasher, provides, among other things, that a portion of teachers’ pay should be tied to students’ performance on standardized exams.  Under the bill, professional service contracts (i.e. tenure) would be eliminated.  Based on the performance of students, teachers may receive merit pay or could potentially be fired.

Sources: http://www.news-press.com/article/20100309/NEWS0104/3090342/1075/Teachers-union-takes-on-Florida-s-Senate; http://www.floridatrend.com/article.asp?aID=52622.

The full text of SB 0006 and other related information is available at the following link: http://archive.flsenate.gov/session/index.cfm?m&Mode=Bills&SubMenu=1&Tab=session&BI_Mode=ViewBillInfo&BillNum=0006&Chamber=Senate&Year=2010&Title=-%3EBill%2520Info%3AS%25200006-%3ESession%25202010

Senate Bill 1580 Seeks to Allow “Inspirational Message” at Noncompulsory High School Events

Florida Republican Senator Stephen R. Wise introduced a bill in the Senate that will potentially allow districts “to permit the delivery of an inspiration message, including a prayer or an invocation, at a noncompulsory high school activity…”  The bill is presently before the Education Pre K-12 and Judiciary committees.  The pertinent portions of the bill are as follows:

(1) District school boards are authorized, but not required, to permit the delivery of an inspirational message, including a prayer or an invocation, at a noncompulsory high school activity, including a student assembly, a sports event, or other school-related activity, if a majority of the participating students request the delivery of an inspirational message and select a student representative to deliver the message.
(2) The purpose of this section is to provide for the solemnization and memorialization of noncompulsory high school events and ceremonies. This section shall not prohibit a school or school official from disciplining students in regard to unprotected speech or behavior that is inappropriate or disruptive.

The full text of SB 1580 and other related information is available at the following link: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_s1580__.DOCX&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=1580&Session=2010

House Bill 1255 would Prohibit Students from Exposing Underwear at School

Representative Hazelle P. “Hazel” Rogers introduced HB 1255, titled, “Code of Student Conduct,” which will require school districts to adopt dress code policies prohibiting students from exposing their underwear or other body parts “in an indecent or vulgar manner or that disrupts the orderly learning environment.”  The bill proposes the following penalties for students who fail to adhere to the dress code:

a. For a first offense, a student will be given a verbal warning and the school principal shall call the student's parent or guardian.
b. For a second offense, the student will be ineligible to participate in any extracurricular activity for a period of time not to exceed 5 days and the school principal shall meet with the student's parent or guardian.

c. For a third offense or subsequent offense, a student will receive an in-school suspension pursuant to s. 1003.01(5)(b) for a period of time not to exceed 3 days, the student will be ineligible to participate in any extracurricular activity for a period of time not to exceed 30 days, and the school principal shall call the student's parent or guardian and send the parent or guardian a written letter regarding the student's in-school suspension and ineligibility to participate in extracurricular activities.

The full text of HB 1255 and other related information is available at the following link: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h1255__.docx&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=1255&Session=2010

Special Education Case Law Update: Impact of Settlement Offer on Right to Attorney’s Fees in IDEA Litigation

On March 3, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion addressing the impact that a settlement offer may have in IDEA litigation.  A.O. v. El Paso Independent School District, Case No. 09-50332 (5th Cir. 2010).  In A.O., the District submitted a settlement offer before a due process hearing was held.  Under the terms of the settlement offer, A.O. would have been provided all the relief she was seeking through her due process action, including $3,000.00 in attorney’s fees (or a larger fee payment if documentation was provided).  The hearing officer ultimately granted the District’s motion to dismiss the case as moot, because the settlement offer afforded A.O. full relief.  Subsequently, A.O. filed an action in the Western District of Texas alleging that her right to a due process hearing was improperly denied.  The District again filed a motion to dismiss the case as moot; however, the Western District of Texas determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction.  The District then appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

The Fifth Circuit held that the settlement offer did not deprive A.O. of her right to proceed under the IDEA.  In its order, the Court explained, “[t]he IDEA itself therefore presumes that a controversy will remain justiciable even though a school district offers full relief in a settlement offer.”  Importantly, however, the Court noted that A.O.’s rejection of the settlement offer may negatively impact her ability to obtain an award of attorney’s fees.  Specifically, the settlement offer would have provided A.O. full relief; therefore, her rejection of the offer may not have been “substantially justified.”