Exibit A to SRCSB Motion to Strike Two Paragraphs in Complaint

8/14/2019 Exibit A to SRCSB Motion to Strike Two Paragraphs in Complaint

1/10

COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ADoe, et al. v. School Board for Santa Rosa Coun ty, et al.

Case No.: 3:08-cv-361-MCR-EMTUnited States District Court, Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division


2/10

AFFIDAVIT OF PAUL GREENSTATE OF FLORIDACOUNTY OF SANTA ROSA

BEFORE ME, this day personally appeared Paul Green, who being duly sworn,deposes and says that the following information is true and correct, and within 111spersonal knowledge:I My name is.Paul Green. I am over the age of 18 and am of sound milidand am competent to tedfy to the matters set forth hereln. I give thefollowing information of which Ihave personalknowledge, oth freely andtruthfully and without any threat of coerclon or promise of reward.2. 1 have been engaged to represent the Santa Rosa County School Boardand have continuously served as School Board Attorney sinceapproximately January 1971.3. 1 have reviewed the Complaint filed in Doe v. School Board for Santa

Rosa Countv, Florlda, et al., Case No.: 3:08-CV-361. In paragraph 64 ofthe Complaint, PIalntiffs reference ameeting held on or about November14, 2007, between staff far the Amerfcan Clvil Llberties Union ("ACLU")and me.4. This meeting was held in order to discuss possible ways to settle orotherwise resolve the grievances presented by American Clvil LlbertiesUnion ("ACLU") staff which are now the subject of Case No,: 3:08-CV-361.5. ' Benjamin Stevenson, Esquire, counsel for the ACLU attended theNovember 14, 2007, meeting. Mr. Stevenson and I discussed thepossibila@of resolving the dispute that Is now before the U.S. DistrictCourt,Northern Dlstrictof Florida in Case No.: 3;08-CV-301,6 . 1 considered the November 14, 2007, meeting to be a meeting held infurtherance of settlement and treated the meetlng as such.7. ,Prior to the November 14,2007meeting, the ACLU hreatened to sue theSanta Rosa County SchooI Board.As such,theongalng discussions hadwith the ACLU in 2007 and up until the time suit was actually filed, alloccurred after the threat of litigation8. Coming out of the meeting, Mr.Stevenson and I shared correspondence,true and exact copies of which are attached to this Affidavit.9, The first letter attached hereto fs a letter I sent to Mr. Stevenson, datedDecember 4, 2007. In that letter I provlded Mr. Stevenson with a draftmemorandum and sought his input regardlng the draft prlor t o sending it toSanta Rosa Coi-rnty SchooI Dlstrict representatlves. The draft


3/10

memorandum was sent to Mr. Stevenson to advance settlementdiscussions between the Santa Rosa County School District and theAC LU.10. The second etter attached hereto was sentby Mr. Stevenson In response

to my December 4, 2007 letter and pravldes the ACLU's position withrespect to the memorandum and other issues relating to the potentialresolution of its concerns,FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. f l

STATEOF FLORIDACOUNTY OF SANTA ROSA ASworn to and subscribed befareme by h~c[Greenthis J J day of r h ee ,200a.

I/helshe is personally known to me,ORas produced asIdentificatlon.

CATHY G.SMTONllPlCOMMISSIONt00 69634EXPIRES: Seplwnher ,2009BonedThruN&y PuMPUMmVnbn (NOTARYSPrintName 6. r5'rdf;bh

Page2 of 2


4/10

. I -~d~L. SON, GREEN MILLLA.,. A.ATTORNEYS AT LAW

T.SOL JOHNSONPAULR.GREENJOHNL. MILLERBRADLEY G.JOHNSONMATTHEW J. HARGRAYBS

6B50 CAROLINE STREETPOST OFFICEBOX 605MILTON, FLORIDA 3Z72(GO)623-3841

FAX (850)623-3555December 4,2007

Benjamin James Stevenson, Esq.ACLU, Northwest Regional OfficeP. 0. ox 12723Pensacola, FL 32591-2723RE: ACLU file no.: 7033fSantaRosa County School District

Dear Mr. Stevenson:I am enclosing for your review and comment a draft mem o that 1have preparedconcerning the subject that we discussed in your office a few weeks ago. Of course, I have given

a good bit of thought to i t after the conferenceadd have reviewed the material you gave me aswell as other materid. I have also consulted with other attorneys for scho ol districts in the stateof Florida, because we do have a network that permits us to discuss o m arious issues.Certainly, conducting matters which tak e place within the school system in accordance

with constitutional principals is a matter which is Iegal in nature. Therefore, I believe theadviceand direction on those issues should appropriately come iom the legal coun sel to the schoolsystem. That, of course, is me. I have discussed , but not given a copy, of this memo to both theSuperintendentof Schools and the Assistan t Superintendent far Curriculum. Obviously, mydiscussions with these individuals are confidential. Nevertheless, I can say that I believe there isa spiritof cooperation and if the ACLU will work with our SchooI District on these matters, thenwe will probably be able to achieve a great deal. What I would like to do is have you review mymemo and then getback in touch withme after the first of the y e a . o discuss it. Lfyou want tohave additionaI bullet points added, then I will be in a position to discuss those with you at thattime. However, as I noted in my memo, I think he important matter fto m the school personnel'spoint is that they have someth ing in hand, which specifically addresses their m ajor issues.Rather than discuss the whole matter of separation of church and state and prayer in the school, Iprefer for the discussion to be simple, straigh tforward and basically, "here are the do's and thedon'ts."Once we have achieved some basic agreement, hopefully, on the memo then the next stepin he process wilI be for the appropriate administrative person or persons to present it to theprincipals at one of their meetings. It will obv iously be discussed and if it is unclear in anymanner, then we will provide clarity. Certainly, it is not possible to present a single documentthat wiII cover a l l potential questions. We may have to deal on a case-by-case basis with variousmatters, but certainly tbis mem o will cover a high percentage of issues that will be ,d si ng n theschool system as the year progresses toward graduation.I will also make the school board members aware by providing them with a copy of thememo once it has been approved but prior to the time it is presented to the school personnel. Ihave given a great deal of thought to the matter of including the memo or some version of it in


5/10

c.. Benjamin StevensonDecember 4,2007Page 2the school board policies and have determined that that would not be appropriate. Certainly, ourschool system and the personnel within it are required to comply with the laws of the state ofFlorida, the federal laws and the law that has been established by the U.S. Supreme C o aparticularly in matters of separation of church and state, Perhaps some reference in the portionof our policies that deals with nondiscrimination might be appropriate. Nevertheless, to date, Ihave not had a response from any of the other school districts to my request for copies of my oftheir school board policies which address these-matters. Thus, I think it is more appropriate toaddress them fiom an administrative standpoint. However, given the natureof some of theissues inbur school district, I certainly wanted the school board members to h o w what is takingplace and therefore, they will be receiving a copy of the memo as I indicated.

As I stated, I will be back in my office after the f i s t of the year. There will be certainperiods of time I will be ou t during January,but they will be relatively brief and not for morethan few days at a time. CertainZy, we should be abIe to complete these matters during themonthof February or March and be set for the events that occur around graduation and seem to bringthe greatest amount of criticism from certain individuals.Again, I appreciateyour coope r to date, and I look forward to hearingfrom you after the first of the year. Wi

PRGlcgsEncl.


6/10

MEMOTO: File -Public Records RequestFROM, school Attorney


7/10

which takes place at a local church and the program and all things associatedwith the pro'grarnare directed solely by the church. The event, itself, isnor endorsed by the school, and certainly attendance by the

Student speakers is an area that is not as clear as the area involving theclergy. Student have some free speech rights, so long as they are notexercised at the of or with the prior approval of school officials.in this area. Perhaps some examples wouldif the school selected - student to give. .he-.specific invocation or benediction wereof th e school. However, if a studentother achievement and hjs/herfrom student" and if thata religious nature as partan exercise in freestudent cannot bebe included in thespeech.

I guess it would probably be impossibIe a directive wh ich would cover everyconceivable situat ion; therefore, I will andwill be available to addressspecific situations.Thank you for giving his very serious matt r your thoughtful consideration.tPaul R GreenSchool Board Attorney for the SchoolBoard of SantaRosa County, FIorida


8/10

CIVILLIBERTIESUNIONOFFLORIDA

ca lo~u lcr!De* rn).I1591-2723ALIII~~ ~ t i ~ f l l f f lAttorney

BSUA29912B786363.1985

Paul R. GreenJohnson, Green& Miller, P.A.P.O. Box 605Milton, FL 32572

January 4,2008V IA U.S.MAIL

Re: Santa Rosa County SchooI District: Draft Directive onReligious Practices

ACLUFile No.: 7033Dear Mr. Green:

I have reviewed your draft directive for your client Santa Rosa CountySchool District's ("SRCSD) employees regarding government advancement of.religion in public schools. We are encouraged by the effort that you have shown tobring the SRCSD into compliance with the law. In particular, we also believe asyou suggested that a directive and school board policy should be straightforwardand easy to understand. Your idea to spell out in detail the "do's and don'ts" islaudable. However, h e Memorandum does not address our concernswithsufticient specificity. For example, the Memorandum might have included moreguidance about the following:

(1) school officials leading prayers or directing others to leadprayers (in class, at events, or before sport competitions);(2) school officials expressing personal religious beliefs to studentsthrough symbols and speech;(3) school officials participating in student, religious-clubmeetings;(4) the appropriateness of invited guests, like youth pastors,remaining neutrality about religion and regularly attending student,

religious-club meetings;( 5 ) the use of religious music;( 6 ) the celebration of religious holidays;(7) the use of places of worship for school events;(8) teaching of religion and the bible as part of a class or as asubject itself;(9) students or school officials distributing religious materials onschool grounds; and


9/10

(10) student expression of religious views.Furthermore, the Memorandum might have framed SRCSD's concerns with

government advancement of religion as stemming from its desire to be in,compliancewith American values and he Constitution, instead of being a reactionto the ACLU's threats of lawsuits or "disgruntled parents." TheMemorandummight seek to provide guidance to school officials who must abide by it instead ofpresenting the law as unclear or evolving.

This Memorandum is a start, but it needs to be more detailed, cover abroader range of topics, and specify more example violations. RichardsonIndependent School District provides an example of school policy on religiouspractices at school. Its policy is reproduced in FINDINGCOMMON ROUND:GUIDEORELIGIOUSIBERTIESN PUBLICCHOOLnd is available on the FreedomForum's website at http:N www..reedonrforwn.ord publications/ fist/indin~common~ound/CG-complete.pdf, starting at pdf-page 221. The ACLUdoes not fully endorse this policy and the policy needs to be updated to reflect theholding in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision of Santa Fe Independent SchoolDistrict v.Doe, 530 U.S..290 (2000) as well as other relevant Eleventh Circuitdecisions. However, it does provide a starting point both to content and to form.

Lastly, your decision not to advise your client to adopt this directive as aSchool Board policy is troubling. While certainly a directivewill place currentSRCSDemployees on notice of the Superintendent's position and the law, it isquestionable how later-hired employees will be informed of this directive and defacto policy. This is especially important because a school-board policy wouldgive future employees notice of its policy so that they do not h d hemselves as adefendant in a lawsuit with exposure to personal liability.

As we discussed in my office, we would prefer to work with you and yourclient to reach a mutually acceptable solution to the Establishment-Clauseviolations evident in SRCSD. And I believe you andwe are continuing along thispath, as your draft directive is a good start. However, any solution fashionedcollaboratively would necessarily-have o provide similar guidance anderforcement as a court order would. We would like to avoid litigation, however,your client should provide precise guidance to its employees about what will andwhat will not be permitted in its schools and establish constructive or actual noticeto employees of the current law and that they will be held personally liable forviolations.

Page 2 of 3


10/10

Please give me a call when you return so that we may discuss this further.Sincerely,

/\& Benjamin James Stevenson

Page 3 of 3

Documents

Exibit A to SRCSB Motion to Strike Two Paragraphs in Complaint