New APS school board policy allows only president to speak to media

The Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education is facing questions about the legality of a new policy that gives only the president of the elected seven-member board the ability to speak to the news media.

On Feb. 5, the board approved in a 5-2 vote several amendments to the governing manual, one of which states, in part, that “board members are not to speak for ... the board, except to explicitly state board decisions.” In addition, the policy states that board members will “support the legitimacy and authority of the final determination of the board on any matter, regardless of the member’s personal position on the issue.” Under these limitations for members, the board president may delegate an official spokesperson to speak on behalf of the board. Board members Ronalda Tome-Warito and Josefina Domínguez voted against the amendments.

The policy — which the board says is influenced by guidance from the Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS) — is facing scrutiny by the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, district constituents and some on the board. The CGCS said the board is misinterpreting the council’s advice.

The policy means that only APS Board President Danielle Gonzales may speak on behalf of the board. In a recent interview, Gonzales said one of the reasons the board feels it is appropriate to have a spokesperson is that board members take an oath and sign forms stating that in their official capacity, they are representing the board, not themselves.

“Maintaining that unified voice works to build confidence in the board’s decision-making,” Gonzales said. “It demonstrates that we are upholding our oaths of that commitment to the community overall.”

Other reasons for the policy include preventing board members from spreading misinformation and shielding APS and the board from legal liability, Gonzales said.

She added that the new policy reduces public confusion and “narratives that may not be accurate.”

“We’ve seen real evidence of when there’s ... different quotes in the media, it just fosters that confusion in the community — and that’s what we want to get away from,” Gonzales said. “What happens in the boardroom trickles down to the classroom.”

She noted the difference between governing and campaigning and said in no way would the policy impact members’ efforts to speak publicly to get re-elected. The policy would also not impact the way members speak to constituents, who already engage with members through town halls, Gonzales said.

During the Feb. 5 meeting, prior to approving the policy, Domínguez sought to clarify whether the language of the proposed policy meant that members still had “the legitimate right” to speak out on their vote even if they state the board’s decision. Gonzales responded that guidance from the CGCS advises that any comment from a board member to the news media could be interpreted as speaking on behalf of the board. Gonzales also invited a discussion to amend the proposal during the meeting, but the board instead went ahead and voted on it.

AJ Crabill, director of governance for the CGCS who has provided coaching to APS, said in an interview that both Gonzales and Domínguez have misinterpreted his organization’s advice. CGCS does not coach school boards on how to deal with news media, other than to advise that school boards have a right to select a spokesperson, Crabill said.

“It can be harmful to a school system’s ability to improve student outcomes if the school board appears to be sending mixed messages regarding what the official decisions and policies of the school system are,” Crabill wrote in an email to the Journal.

If a school board appoints a spokesperson to prevent other members from attempting to “sabotage” decisions once they are made, then that is a decision best made by local officials, Crabill said.

In a text message to the Journal following the meeting, Domínguez declined to share her views on the policy and reiterated the board’s decision.

Kristin Greer Love, an attorney with the ACLU-NM, said the policy “raises serious concerns” and contradicts a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision and court decisions in other states, though she is not aware of any case in New Mexico that has addressed the speech issues tied to the APS policy.

“The citizens of Albuquerque need to be able to make informed decisions about who they’re voting for, and part of the information they need to have is to understand why their elected officials have voted in the way that they have,” Love said. “School board members must be able to share their opinions. That’s part of the health of our democracy.”

ACLU-NM spokesperson Maria Archuleta said her organization has not been in conversation with APS about the policy, which “we are keeping a close watch on.”

Lee Ross, an Alvarado Elementary School parent who complained to the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government about the policy, told the Journal that he believes APS constituents are “smart enough to know the difference” between a board member speaking for themselves or the entire board.

“I want everyone to have as much free speech as possible, and I don’t think the media possibly being confused (about the board’s position) is a good reason” to silence board members’ voices, Ross said.