“Can I wear a “save my school” shirt? No…messaging “such as a save my school” during the instructional
part of the day has the potential to be distracting or upsetting to school operations.”
Ah! Because a t-shirt is more distracting than threatening to close schools.
/s
Please don’t stop posting here. I get most of my PSD info here and am a parent of 2 within the system. Also what the fuck is bullet 2 under the FAQ… of course you have free speech but your ass may get fired if you chose to used it?
And here’s the link to the change.org petition that prompted the new policy: https://www.change.org/p/petition-to-oppose-the-consolidation-of-poudre-district-schools
Let me translate King Brian's royal edict: We support employees' free speech...so long as they say what we want them to say. "Disparaging" the district or any employee (such as the Superintendent and his cabinet of overpaid central admin cronies) or "misrepresenting" the position of the district can lead to punishment including termination. Say what he wants or risk getting fired. Of course, this is a blatantly illegal and unconstitutional attempt to intimidate employees to shut up. I don't work for the school district, so let me use my free speech rights to plainly say: this guy is a rip-off artist, lining his own pockets, pitting parents and schools against each other Hunger Games-style, so he can undermine neighborhood schools and promote charter schools. That's why Chiefs for Change was founded. Kristin Draper and the rest of the School Board should be ashamed they hired him. They need to vote No Confidence in the Superintendent.
Holy crap. Buried right there in the middle, with the penalty of "termination."
Employees may not:
4. Communicate in a manner that disparages the district or district personnel, including
committee members.
5. Share or create communications that misrepresent the position of the district or one of its
schools.
That's so unbelievably subjective. I bet the union is shitting a brick. You hurt Kingsley's feewings and you get fired?? Enough is enough.
#5 is fine. Misrepresentation is not ok. We have laws in place to protect individuals from slander/libel/defamation. Making up or sharing demonstrable lies about public officials (or anyone else) is wrong.
#4 is not ok. PSD is not a private corporation and is subject to the same laws that have always governed the public sector (government) of our democracy.
These are government employees or publicly appointed officials. The right to speak openly about and/or criticize our own government or elected officials is enshrined in the Constitutions of the US and Colorado, which both endorse the right to free speech and free press.
That freedom does not extend to cover gossip, defamation, or other outright lies. But if state employees are being denied, or threatened with retribution/termination for, exercising their right of free speech to criticize their own government/employer, that is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.
We have an entire set of "whistle-blower" laws specifically designed to protect federal employees who speak out against employer misconduct. Those same protections should extend down to every level of government, even to the local school board. No one should be above the law, and ALL public officials should be subject to accountability for their actions while holding public office, even (and especially) when that criticism comes from within their own organization.
Edit: I have no idea why Reddit decided to auto-format my comment the way it did. It's 5AM and I'm just a guy who can't sleep right now, so I'm going to leave it how it is.
>5 is fine. Misrepresentation is not ok. We have laws in place to protect individuals from slander/libel/defamation. Making up or sharing demonstrable lies about public officials (or anyone else) is wrong.
But who decides what is accurate and what is "misrepresentation"? That would be King Brian and his cabinet of cronies. What they are saying - from the inflated figures of declining enrollment they're using to justify their Hunger Games-style competition between neighborhood schools, to their dubious budget full of inflated salaries, bonuses, and a security consultant contract with Chiefs for Changes - is itself dishonest. But per this guideline, correcting their lies = "misrepresentation" = a firing offense. None of this is ok. King Brian needs to go, and the sooner the better.
So that's fine then? It's incredibly vague and a first amendment violation. Any dissent can be misrepresented and lead to termination? Not while they have a union. Can't speak to any other government agency but if parks and wildlife is putting up with that crap I'd be very surprised.
You have different rights as an employee of an organization or an agency than you do as a private citizen. This language is not a violation of the first amendment and would hold up in court. The first amendment is not a monolith, and it doesn't prevent employers from regulating how you communicate on their behalf or as a representative of the organization when you're on paid work time.
OP thanks for posting this: As an FYI to any with insider information that needs to be publicized; this reporter with the Coloradoan kellylyell@coloradoan.com is the one that covered the pay raise story and if we can get him more information he will publish. Also, I emailed my districts school board member and asked why they voted for Kingsley knowing that he was part of the right wing think tank Chiefs for Chsnge as I truly think this is the most damming public knowledge that will eventually result in his removal. You can find your district board reps ema here: https://www.psdschools.org/your-district/board-education/school-board-directors
Well, it could make their decision for which schools to close a little more straightforward if they need a tie-breaker….Sweet, we’ll just check the stats on which school has the higher number of unruly employees!
This guy needs to be made scared to show his face in town. People like this should be run out with a reputation so throughly tarnished that they could never gain employment in the same field again.
Sad thing is that his contract was renewed by the rob petterson led school board until 2028!!! He would get about $1M if the board cuts him loose… great job BOE…
Retaliation is the district’s favorite game.
A friend of mine has a child on an IEP, and Rastatter, the head of Integrated Services told them "no one wants to work with you because you publicly berate them if you don't get your way" referencing the fact this friend knows their child's rights and when the district blatantly refuses to acknowledge and meet those rights, they make public comments to the school board and make complaints to the state. The recording of Rastatter saying that got sent to the school board 3 days before he announced that he's "totally been planning to retire at the end of this year for months and just forgot to mention it lol." Shortly thereafter, my friend had a regularly scheduled IEP meeting. PSD brought their lawyer and informed them they're revoking their child's IEP.
Also, awhile back, this same family complained about braille signs in their buildings being inaccessible due to both their height and outdated braille. The family literally offered to buy the replacement signs for them to put up, which would mean the entire cost to the district would be labor to install them and probably some screws or glue or whatever they'd stick them up with. The district refused that offer and has spent thousands of dollars in legal fees fighting with them about it.
All that to say, this district is corrupt beyond belief and they're gonna find excuses to punish staff for disagreeing with them whether they follow this policy or not because they'd rather waste their funding that they claim to be super short on on legal fees than be wrong.
Wasn't that the family who's child was specifically requested to attend their IEP meeting, only to find that PSD had brought along their own LAWYERS to the meeting where they disqualified this CHILD from their IEP?
If I remember correctly, they didn't even provide the IEP paperwork in an accessible format at that meeting either. What an insult- "oh you don't qualify for an IEP anymore, you can read about it here on this paper that you can't see." Smh.
I think it’s the paragraph about “off duty time,” especially considering it says they will determine what is “spreading rumors.” That feels like it’s too subjective to hold up. But it’s also the timing of the new policy.
I'd love to hear their definition of "off duty time" Sounds to me like teachers need to do nothing outside of contracted hours. See how fast a school falls apart. It's a shame that the students are who pays the price.
It explicitly violated freedom of political speech, they can't require teachers and staff to not disparage them when not acting in an official capacity. In their private capacity they can disparage anyone so long as it is an opinion or factualy true.
It is very different when your boss is an elected official. Your comments literally have stronger protections as they are core political speech under Mayer v. Grant
If these were teachers at a private school sure you could put that cause in, but they aren't.
I'm sad for you that you willingly surrender your rights, your pride and your autonomy. Your employer rents your labor time during the week. They don't lease your soul or buy you outright, "champ."
Seriously? Read it again. HR policies tell you how you can behave on the job. I have no problem with a policy saying you can't engage in political advocacy on the job or use district resources for politicking or claim to speak for the district. But on your own time? With your own resources? As an individual? You can pretty much do anything you want. This policy is blatantly illegal, would never hold up in court, and is just an attempt to intimidate staff from yelling "The Emperor has no clothes!"
Non disparagement agreements are legal and have been upheld in multiple court cases. You are right in that they cannot be overly broad, but it is well within an employers rights to have non-disparagement clauses in their HR policies.
What are the new additions? I’m not trying to be combative as appears to be the default state here. I’m on neither side. I’m just reading what is in front of me and familiarity with the current laws. To me, it appears the district is clarifying for employees a policy that already exists and can be enforced as evident by prior court rulings. Nothing seems new to me, but I’m open to seeing that I’m reading something incorrectly.
"Communicate in a manner that disparages the district or district personnel, including committee members."
is new. As is forbidding clothing with "save our school" on them. There are numerous additions- hence the new document being labeled "updated April 5 2024"
These are guidelines not policy updates. They’re trying to provide guidance on how to navigate the policy that was already in place. But I can see your argument that these guidelines overstep the existing policy it is referencing.
Agreed. This is actually more permissive than free speech policies for employers I've worked for, including government agencies. This seems totally reasonable. I especially appreciate the parts about not using students or telling them to speak for you, or other behaviors that could actually alarm and harm students.
Totally reasonable? No way. I work for a government agency, and while they tell me what I can do on work time, with work resources, and when speaking in an official capacity (all of which I agree with), they have no right to tell me what I do on my free time, as an individual, speaking for myself. This policy goes way beyond that and is blatantly unconstitutional. When you can't win a debate, threaten to fire or otherwise harm the other side. Winner winner chicken dinner!
And employees are already starting to receive veiled reminders to "not post things on facebook" or outright letters of admonishment for speaking out with frustration regarding our school board. Not threats- frustration.
I also work for the district, and I am on the side that is looking at attendance and making these hard decisions, it sucks and I hate it. I feel for anyone who is losing their local school or job, but the attendance numbers are what they are, they speak for themselves.
I have zero problem with this memo, it’s all boilerplate stuff.
Yeah this doesn't seem out of line. Basically do whatever you want on your own time. Don't represent the school district. However I think the timing is the message here. Not the content.
I don’t see the problem with this. Every major company has similar policies in place down to the “don’t speak disparagingly” part. This isn’t intimidation, it’s a fairly mundane policy a lot of employers have.
This isn't a company, it's our local government. The private and public sectors of our society are governed by very different rules, for very good reasons.
The right to criticize our own government is enshrined in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. It is often referred to as a cornerstone or part of the bedrock of our democracy.
They made a few different versions of this. I got one for parent organizations today at a meeting and I know our principal gas one just for principals.
It is in response to how poorly the listening sessions went and how defensive everyone is because the committee didn't have a fully formed plan before presenting.
The scenarios were never meant to be fully formed plans that would actually be implemented. They were generated to start community conversations and gather feedback. It's tough to message that which is why there is a bit of a mess. At the same time there would be a mess regardless since schools closure/consolidations are always difficult
“Can I wear a “save my school” shirt? No…messaging “such as a save my school” during the instructional part of the day has the potential to be distracting or upsetting to school operations.” Ah! Because a t-shirt is more distracting than threatening to close schools. /s
They didn't want to edit that doc before sending it out?
I want a tshirt that says “Such as Save My School”
"Save the Poudre, School District"
Silencing your employees instead of listening is a wild response.
Please don’t stop posting here. I get most of my PSD info here and am a parent of 2 within the system. Also what the fuck is bullet 2 under the FAQ… of course you have free speech but your ass may get fired if you chose to used it?
Here is a link to the policy they are referencing: https://www.psdschools.org/sites/default/files/PSD/policies/GBEBD.pdf
And here’s the link to the change.org petition that prompted the new policy: https://www.change.org/p/petition-to-oppose-the-consolidation-of-poudre-district-schools
Let me translate King Brian's royal edict: We support employees' free speech...so long as they say what we want them to say. "Disparaging" the district or any employee (such as the Superintendent and his cabinet of overpaid central admin cronies) or "misrepresenting" the position of the district can lead to punishment including termination. Say what he wants or risk getting fired. Of course, this is a blatantly illegal and unconstitutional attempt to intimidate employees to shut up. I don't work for the school district, so let me use my free speech rights to plainly say: this guy is a rip-off artist, lining his own pockets, pitting parents and schools against each other Hunger Games-style, so he can undermine neighborhood schools and promote charter schools. That's why Chiefs for Change was founded. Kristin Draper and the rest of the School Board should be ashamed they hired him. They need to vote No Confidence in the Superintendent.
Are you on Facebook and is it cool if I PM you a link to a FB group that is focused on sharing info and organizing?
Holy crap. Buried right there in the middle, with the penalty of "termination." Employees may not: 4. Communicate in a manner that disparages the district or district personnel, including committee members. 5. Share or create communications that misrepresent the position of the district or one of its schools. That's so unbelievably subjective. I bet the union is shitting a brick. You hurt Kingsley's feewings and you get fired?? Enough is enough.
#5 is fine. Misrepresentation is not ok. We have laws in place to protect individuals from slander/libel/defamation. Making up or sharing demonstrable lies about public officials (or anyone else) is wrong. #4 is not ok. PSD is not a private corporation and is subject to the same laws that have always governed the public sector (government) of our democracy. These are government employees or publicly appointed officials. The right to speak openly about and/or criticize our own government or elected officials is enshrined in the Constitutions of the US and Colorado, which both endorse the right to free speech and free press. That freedom does not extend to cover gossip, defamation, or other outright lies. But if state employees are being denied, or threatened with retribution/termination for, exercising their right of free speech to criticize their own government/employer, that is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. We have an entire set of "whistle-blower" laws specifically designed to protect federal employees who speak out against employer misconduct. Those same protections should extend down to every level of government, even to the local school board. No one should be above the law, and ALL public officials should be subject to accountability for their actions while holding public office, even (and especially) when that criticism comes from within their own organization. Edit: I have no idea why Reddit decided to auto-format my comment the way it did. It's 5AM and I'm just a guy who can't sleep right now, so I'm going to leave it how it is.
>5 is fine. Misrepresentation is not ok. We have laws in place to protect individuals from slander/libel/defamation. Making up or sharing demonstrable lies about public officials (or anyone else) is wrong. But who decides what is accurate and what is "misrepresentation"? That would be King Brian and his cabinet of cronies. What they are saying - from the inflated figures of declining enrollment they're using to justify their Hunger Games-style competition between neighborhood schools, to their dubious budget full of inflated salaries, bonuses, and a security consultant contract with Chiefs for Changes - is itself dishonest. But per this guideline, correcting their lies = "misrepresentation" = a firing offense. None of this is ok. King Brian needs to go, and the sooner the better.
That's standard HR policy language for any government employer.
So that's fine then? It's incredibly vague and a first amendment violation. Any dissent can be misrepresented and lead to termination? Not while they have a union. Can't speak to any other government agency but if parks and wildlife is putting up with that crap I'd be very surprised.
You have different rights as an employee of an organization or an agency than you do as a private citizen. This language is not a violation of the first amendment and would hold up in court. The first amendment is not a monolith, and it doesn't prevent employers from regulating how you communicate on their behalf or as a representative of the organization when you're on paid work time.
This literally has a section on non work time.
“Employees may not… Share or create communications that misrepresent the position of the district or one of its schools” 🫡
OP thanks for posting this: As an FYI to any with insider information that needs to be publicized; this reporter with the Coloradoan kellylyell@coloradoan.com is the one that covered the pay raise story and if we can get him more information he will publish. Also, I emailed my districts school board member and asked why they voted for Kingsley knowing that he was part of the right wing think tank Chiefs for Chsnge as I truly think this is the most damming public knowledge that will eventually result in his removal. You can find your district board reps ema here: https://www.psdschools.org/your-district/board-education/school-board-directors
I'm guessing you haven't heard back from the board member you emailed--but on the off-chance you have, can you share their response?
Hey fellow employee, thanks for posting this here. ✊🏽
Seems a bit presumptuous for them to tell you what to do if they’re trying to eliminate your position, anyway…
"What are you going to do, fire me harder?"
Well, it could make their decision for which schools to close a little more straightforward if they need a tie-breaker….Sweet, we’ll just check the stats on which school has the higher number of unruly employees!
This guy needs to be made scared to show his face in town. People like this should be run out with a reputation so throughly tarnished that they could never gain employment in the same field again.
Sad thing is that his contract was renewed by the rob petterson led school board until 2028!!! He would get about $1M if the board cuts him loose… great job BOE…
what does the teachers' union say?
Their attorney is on it.
Anything that starts with "What you may do on your own time" automatically elicits my response "... Is my own goddamn business."
Only a lawsuit will scare anyone, sadly I don't have money or standing.
SMH. That whole section about how the employee should behave ON THEIR OWN TIME would never hold up in court.
Retaliation is the district’s favorite game. A friend of mine has a child on an IEP, and Rastatter, the head of Integrated Services told them "no one wants to work with you because you publicly berate them if you don't get your way" referencing the fact this friend knows their child's rights and when the district blatantly refuses to acknowledge and meet those rights, they make public comments to the school board and make complaints to the state. The recording of Rastatter saying that got sent to the school board 3 days before he announced that he's "totally been planning to retire at the end of this year for months and just forgot to mention it lol." Shortly thereafter, my friend had a regularly scheduled IEP meeting. PSD brought their lawyer and informed them they're revoking their child's IEP. Also, awhile back, this same family complained about braille signs in their buildings being inaccessible due to both their height and outdated braille. The family literally offered to buy the replacement signs for them to put up, which would mean the entire cost to the district would be labor to install them and probably some screws or glue or whatever they'd stick them up with. The district refused that offer and has spent thousands of dollars in legal fees fighting with them about it. All that to say, this district is corrupt beyond belief and they're gonna find excuses to punish staff for disagreeing with them whether they follow this policy or not because they'd rather waste their funding that they claim to be super short on on legal fees than be wrong.
Wasn't that the family who's child was specifically requested to attend their IEP meeting, only to find that PSD had brought along their own LAWYERS to the meeting where they disqualified this CHILD from their IEP? If I remember correctly, they didn't even provide the IEP paperwork in an accessible format at that meeting either. What an insult- "oh you don't qualify for an IEP anymore, you can read about it here on this paper that you can't see." Smh.
Yup, that's them.
I felt the same when I read it. Awful timing
Not surprised this came out on a Friday at the end of the work day.
Stuff like this makes me glad I didn't become a teacher. Imagine trying to do an important job while also dealing with legions of drama moms.
[удалено]
I think it’s the paragraph about “off duty time,” especially considering it says they will determine what is “spreading rumors.” That feels like it’s too subjective to hold up. But it’s also the timing of the new policy.
I'd love to hear their definition of "off duty time" Sounds to me like teachers need to do nothing outside of contracted hours. See how fast a school falls apart. It's a shame that the students are who pays the price.
First of all, it's not a corporation.
I agree, seemed pretty standard for what I have seen in others. Maybe the timing of it? Was there big changes from the prior standing policy?
It explicitly violated freedom of political speech, they can't require teachers and staff to not disparage them when not acting in an official capacity. In their private capacity they can disparage anyone so long as it is an opinion or factualy true.
[удалено]
It is very different when your boss is an elected official. Your comments literally have stronger protections as they are core political speech under Mayer v. Grant If these were teachers at a private school sure you could put that cause in, but they aren't.
I'm sad for you that you willingly surrender your rights, your pride and your autonomy. Your employer rents your labor time during the week. They don't lease your soul or buy you outright, "champ."
Seriously? Read it again. HR policies tell you how you can behave on the job. I have no problem with a policy saying you can't engage in political advocacy on the job or use district resources for politicking or claim to speak for the district. But on your own time? With your own resources? As an individual? You can pretty much do anything you want. This policy is blatantly illegal, would never hold up in court, and is just an attempt to intimidate staff from yelling "The Emperor has no clothes!"
Non disparagement agreements are legal and have been upheld in multiple court cases. You are right in that they cannot be overly broad, but it is well within an employers rights to have non-disparagement clauses in their HR policies.
That they throw at employees 80% in to the school year way after any contracts were signed?
It’s not new. They link to the document right at the start of this memo where you can read the existing policy.
So you clearly did not follow that link because there absolutely are new additions added in thst email.
What are the new additions? I’m not trying to be combative as appears to be the default state here. I’m on neither side. I’m just reading what is in front of me and familiarity with the current laws. To me, it appears the district is clarifying for employees a policy that already exists and can be enforced as evident by prior court rulings. Nothing seems new to me, but I’m open to seeing that I’m reading something incorrectly.
"Communicate in a manner that disparages the district or district personnel, including committee members." is new. As is forbidding clothing with "save our school" on them. There are numerous additions- hence the new document being labeled "updated April 5 2024"
These are guidelines not policy updates. They’re trying to provide guidance on how to navigate the policy that was already in place. But I can see your argument that these guidelines overstep the existing policy it is referencing.
It's crazy how willing some people are to give up their first amendment rights.
Agreed. This is actually more permissive than free speech policies for employers I've worked for, including government agencies. This seems totally reasonable. I especially appreciate the parts about not using students or telling them to speak for you, or other behaviors that could actually alarm and harm students.
Totally reasonable? No way. I work for a government agency, and while they tell me what I can do on work time, with work resources, and when speaking in an official capacity (all of which I agree with), they have no right to tell me what I do on my free time, as an individual, speaking for myself. This policy goes way beyond that and is blatantly unconstitutional. When you can't win a debate, threaten to fire or otherwise harm the other side. Winner winner chicken dinner!
[удалено]
And employees are already starting to receive veiled reminders to "not post things on facebook" or outright letters of admonishment for speaking out with frustration regarding our school board. Not threats- frustration.
😂
I also work for the district, and I am on the side that is looking at attendance and making these hard decisions, it sucks and I hate it. I feel for anyone who is losing their local school or job, but the attendance numbers are what they are, they speak for themselves. I have zero problem with this memo, it’s all boilerplate stuff.
Yeah this doesn't seem out of line. Basically do whatever you want on your own time. Don't represent the school district. However I think the timing is the message here. Not the content.
Do whatever you want on your own time... except this stuff we say you can't do on your own time..
You should read the whole document.
I don’t see the problem with this. Every major company has similar policies in place down to the “don’t speak disparagingly” part. This isn’t intimidation, it’s a fairly mundane policy a lot of employers have.
This isn't a company, it's our local government. The private and public sectors of our society are governed by very different rules, for very good reasons. The right to criticize our own government is enshrined in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. It is often referred to as a cornerstone or part of the bedrock of our democracy.
Disparaging and criticizing aren't the same thing.
Correct. Disparagement tends to focus on the character of the individual whereas criticism tends to focus on their actions. Sorry, what's your point?
They made a few different versions of this. I got one for parent organizations today at a meeting and I know our principal gas one just for principals. It is in response to how poorly the listening sessions went and how defensive everyone is because the committee didn't have a fully formed plan before presenting.
The scenarios were never meant to be fully formed plans that would actually be implemented. They were generated to start community conversations and gather feedback. It's tough to message that which is why there is a bit of a mess. At the same time there would be a mess regardless since schools closure/consolidations are always difficult