Read on Twitter
Tempers flare in six-hour Jefferson School Board hearing for Ka'Mauri Harrison https://www.nola.com/news/education/article_6fc8d660-3681-11eb-af9d-0b6be993cb95.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share via @nolanews
I'll try to explain this briefly. Appeal hearings (for student expulsions) are normally held during board meetings. But in "executive session," or behind closed doors. The students can request that the hearings be held in open session. They never do. (2/x)
Yesterday's hearings for Ka'Mauri and Tomie Brown were not expulsions. They were suspensions, and were the first held in the state under the requirements of the Ka'Mauri Harrison Act, which passed earlier this year. Background on that in the story. (3/x)
But when the we showed there was a sign on the door that said "cameras and videotaping are not allowed in the Boardroom." (4/x)
The stated reason was "to protect privacy of all parties nad to ensure proper decorum." @WDSU 's @CrockettWDSU and I objected to this. But attorneys for the board told us that, in an apparently novel interpretation of the open meetings law...(5/x)
....the board was sitting as a "court" and could impose similar rules as courts. Again we objected. No judge. not a courtroom. Meeting was noticed as a "Special Session Meeting." There was a quorum of the School Board present, which requires and open meeting. (6/x)
SB attorneys were not budging. I called our newspaper's attorney, @ScottLSternberg, who after we talked said, "I'll be there in five minutes." (7/x)
. @ScottLSternberg, who had recently suffered a loss in his family, was not himself. But he was offended at the suggestion that the meeting would not be public....as the law requires. (8/x)
. @ScottLSternberg came through the door and moments later, in what may be described as a voice that left no doubt, told the board attorneys "I will go to Jefferson Parish and get a TRO right now." (9/x)
SB attorneys relented...a bit. As a result of the publicity around this story, they said some of the witnesses had received threats online. Those witnesses were uncomfortable testifying with TV cameras present. (10/x)
They asked us not to photo the witnesses and asked TV to turn off their cameras for those witnesses. @CrockettWDSU said she was uncomfortable allowing a public board to tell her what parts of a public meeting she could and couldn't film. (11/x)
This is, in my mind, the absolutely correct response. (12/x)
More huddling. @ScottLSternberg argued to the board that the media often withholds information in sensitive situations, ie Murder scenes, the names of sex crime victims for example. (13/x)
Eventually, the board agreed that the cameras could audio record. But they asked that they film those witnesses. TV stations present by then, which included @WWLTV agreed. We agreed not to photo those witnesses. (14/x)
This compromise would not have worked out without a First Amendment attorney, in this case @ScottLSternberg wading in and letting the board -- and the five attorneys (at least) they had present, know that they couldn't steamroll the open meetings law. (15/x)
Everybody says they love the Constitution. But sometimes, even the First Amendment needs somebody to speak up for it. Thankful to Scott, who diverted his plans to come over there and fight for it. Sometimes lawyers are good. Fin. (16/16)
