(From April, 2021)

Fellow Elected Trustees and Fellow Citizens:

As we discuss this agenda item and the related notices I have received from fellow
elected President Taylor I have asked for about 12 minutes of your time to address
a complicated subject.

First, I have asked President Taylor if any of my comments have violated the law?
No. Did I violate any Nevada Ethics rules? No. Did I violate any rules of decorum
at Board Meetings? Again the answer was no.

I remain committed to open dialogue and offer to meet and confer on any issue and
I suggest the use of a trained mediator to facilitate confidential and open
communication. That applies to those groups and associations that have made false
allegations. I welcome independent fact checkers on the statistics I use on our
Quality of Education.

I ask that this agenda item be tabled for a future meeting to allow open discussion
and negotiation including between the ACLU and the District so as to avoid, not
encourage litigation.

So while I have not violated any laws, Ethics or Decorum rules, I allegedly
violated Board Policy and so called “protocols” set before my tenure that requires
compliance and uses the word “shall” to mandate obedience to Board Governance
Rules.

“Trustees are expected to support the final decision made by the whole Board.
Trustees may confirm to the public that they voted against a Board decision but
shall not engage in undermining the decision or publicly criticizing the Board or
individual Trustees regarding the decision.”

And (edited)
“The Board shall follow … Balanced Governance Model Standards …”

And

“Trustees shall ensure all policies support the Balanced Governance Model
Standards.”
Policy 9052 Communication Protocols contains very similar: ”shall” language that
mandates support but I see nothing that mandates I copy the Board President on
my communications nor should I have to.

I remind Trustees that we took an oath to Support the Constitution. I refer the
media to the Nevada ACLU that has stated they believe the policy to be a violation
of Free Speech.

I remind all that Trustees often are also candidates for re-election. The courts have
said we must have “thicker skins” and criticism comes with the job. I have not
decided with certainty if I’ll seek re-election but shouldn’t candidates have free
speech to criticize or be criticized?

So the dilemma I face is support our constitutional rights or the Board Policy. The
policy mandates “group think”. Follow my conscience and be disciplined or allow
myself to be bullied.

I urge all to read the legal research entitled: “What About My Rights? School
Board Members and the First Amendment”
(by Karla Schultz, Walsh, Gallegos, Treviño, Russo & Kyle, P.C. Mark Tilley,
Texas Association of School Boards)

Link provided in my handout:

https://cdn-files.nsba.org/s3fs-public/10-Schultz-Tilley-SBM-and-First-
Amendment-Paper.pdf

This is so important as I want to share with you all the #1 quoted free speech US
Supreme Court Case called Bond. Who was that? Julian Bond was an elected
official who sued his agency for his free speech rights. He was an elected African
America congressman and civil rights leader that went on to head the NAACP.

In supporting Mr. Bond, the court said, “the interest of the public in hearing all
sides of a public issue is hardly advanced by extending more protection to citizen-
critics than to legislators.” “The manifest function of the First Amendment in a
representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to
express their views on issue of policy,” Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote. “Just as
erroneous statements must be protected to give freedom of expression the
breathing space it needs to survive, so statements criticizing public policy and the
implementation of it must be similarly protected.”

Under WCSD Policy, Bond would be censured. In another case

St Louis Police Officer sued his employer. Again a violation of WCSD policy.
That brave officer was a gay man who won a "historic" $20 million judgment in a
sexual orientation discrimination lawsuit. Was that officer wrong to have sued?
Should the St Louis County Police censure him?

Please allow me to share one final example. You likely know my nickname of
Watchdog Jeff. Back in 1983 a young police officer, the senior ranking military
officer, after negotiations failed, sued his employer over the rights of citizen
soldiers; members of the Guard and Reserve. He not only won a Consent Decree
that survives today but twice sued and won to enforce that. In the third court
hearing the late Federal Judge Edward Reed said in his findings, “Sgt Church has
served the City well as a Watchdog.”

Was I wrong to sue my employer to secure the rights for future military members?

Our founding fathers wisely created three co-equal branches of Government. The
Judicial Branch is no less important than the others but WCSD would have you
believe that to use it to resolve disputes is worthy of censure.

I want to walk back statements I made on litigation. I support administrative

remedies, dialogue, mediation and even arbitration to resolve disputes. But as in
the case of Julian Bond or the brave St Louis Officer, the courts are the co-equal
third branch that our Constitution provides and you cannot take that away from me.
It would seem that it is the District that is pushing us toward litigation.

I ask the media to review past board meetings and show where I was out of line. I
specifically ask the public to look at the listed brief portion of a meeting, I find it
very troubling:

Please see: 4-20-21: marker: 2:04:10 and 2:16:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ2Vec1Vd4M
From President Taylor: “…you continue to violate Board Policies/Protocols “Even
after our meeting on April 16th..” and “you continued to ignore the protocol to
copy the Board President when you choose to respond to Board Member emails.”
So I must copy the Board President or in my communications or face censure?
Further I’m told I cannot respond all to publiccomments@washoeschool.net. Are
all Board members aware of that?

I have on-line quotes, screen shots, photos and videos of Trustees and staff that
seem to say, “Do as we order not as we say or do”.

As I close I’ll cover the main issues that I believe suppress our free speech rights:

1. Ending Open Public Meetings with active public input with no vote of the Board
under the guise of public safety. Not even allowing live Zoom style comments.

2. Removing two long standing agenda items: Board Reports and Request for
Future Agenda Items from the WCSD agenda with no Board Vote. Does anyone
really believe this was done to save time?

3. Holding Press Conferences and removing/ not admitting persons with whom
they did not agree, “The WCSD media briefings are by invitation only, and the
law does not require us to invite all members of the media.” Victoria Campbell
- Holy Smoke- WCSD is a govt agency not a Golf Club.
(See Pen American Center v. Donald J Trump # 18CV 9433 and Toll v Gilman,
NV Sup Ct)

4. Allowing the Superintendent to meet with other Trustees, while she refuses to
meet with me even by Zoom.

5. And now censure per policy that requires I chose between my constitutional
beliefs and what the Board mandates.

I urge my fellow Trustees to open discussion on these.

Proposals on K-12 Social Justice including Goal 19 that states:

“Students will make principled decisions about when and how to take a stand
against bias and injustice in their everyday lives and will do so despite negative
peer or group pressure.”
In summary, we work for the citizens that elected us, not the Board. We took an
oath to support the Constitution. That includes the three branches of government.
No one alleges I violated any law, any Ethics Rules or any Board Meeting rule of
order.

I support mediated and confidential discussion and please allow all parties to
address this before propelling us down a spiral of dysfunction. But I also support
conducting the People’s business in a public forum with true public active input
and allowing Board Remarks and Request for Agenda items in open meeting, not
behind closed doors.

Board policy states: “The Board promotes practices that solicit input and
involvement from all segments of the community” At last count I had about 69
emails of support and no emails against my actions.

I ask the Board to table this to allow reason to prevail. If formal censure is applied
and in good faith I disregard it, will I be subject to litigation? Will I be subject to
ongoing discipline such as every meeting or would we move on?

Sincerely

Jeff Church
Elected Trustee

1.05 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION FOR THE BOARD PRESIDENT

TO REMIND THE TRUSTEES OF THEIR PLEDGE TO FOLLOW BOARD
GOVERNANCE, BOARD POLICIES, AND BOARD PROTOCOLS AS A
MEMBER OF THE WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF
TRUSTEES AND ACTION TO HONOR THAT COMMITMENT (FOR

POSSIBLE ACTION)

Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has
ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they
first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities,
and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are
allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their
presence. FREDERICK DOUGLASS

Content-specific regulations on protected free speech must meet strict scrutiny,

which means that they must be narrowly tailored and necessary to achieve a
compelling government interest.

US Supreme Court

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not
want to hear. GEORGE ORWELL

There's no fine line between "free speech" and "hate speech": Free speech is hate
speech; it's for the speech you hate -- and for all your speech that the other guy
hates. If you don't have free speech, then you can't have an honest discussion.
Mark Steyn

Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is

taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on
its ruins. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 1989:

“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the
government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society
finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v Johnson, US Supreme
Court
For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which
may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the
consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be
taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.
GEORGE WASHINGTON

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve
them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the
right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them
to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control
over instruments they have created.

Once the right to speak has been granted by the Legislature … the full panoply of
First Amendment rights attaches to the public’s right to speak. The public’s
freedom of speech during public meetings is vigorously protected by both the U.S.
Constitution and the Nevada Constitution. Freedom of expression upon public
questions is secured by the First Amendment. Nevada A.G. OML Manual Sections
8.01 and 13.03

United States Supreme Court,1936, “Since informed public opinion is the most
potent of all restraints upon misgovernment, the suppression or abridgement of the
publicity afforded by a free press cannot be regarded otherwise than with grave
concern.”

The worst way to defend our freedom is to let our leaders start taking away our
freedoms! It is exactly during times like these [a national crisis] that we need more
freedom of speech, a strong and critical press, and a citizenry that is not afraid to
stand up and say that the emperor has no clothes. MICHAEL MOORE

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum
of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum--even
encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that
there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system
are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. NOAM
CHOMSKY

Everyone is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being
extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but
if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage. Churchill

While, legally and constitutionally, speech may be free, the space in which that
freedom can be exercised has been snatched from us and auctioned to the highest
bidders. ARUNDHATI ROY

“PEN declares for a free press and opposes arbitrary censorship. It believes that the
necessary advance of the world toward a more highly organized political and
economic order renders free criticism of governments, administrations, and
institutions imperative.” —PEN Charter, 1948

Policy 9051:

*Note: I find the word Protocol nor guidance nowhere in the policy except if you
violate it.

Trustees promote change through dialogue and collaboration

Balanced Governance Model: Individual Board Member Characteristic #2a Role

Orientation: Trustees engage in open dialogue focused on general interests

and welcome various viewpoints, but make decisions based on the best course

of action for the entire school community. Trustees avoid open debate focused
on activism or special interests and value collective consensus over individual

viewpoints in decision-making and governance protocols.

The Board promotes practices that solicit input and involvement from all segments
of the community.

The Board recognizes and celebrates the contributions of school and community
members in school improvement efforts.

The Board is responsive and respectful to community inquiry and feedback.

………..