School Board discusses changes to book challenge process, including prohibiting witnesses and no longer publishing videos of book challenge hearings

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – At the School Board of Alachua County May 8 workshop, Staff Attorney Susan Seigle briefed the board on proposed changes to its policy for handling book challenges; the amended policy will likely have its first reading at the May 21 school board meeting, followed by a public hearing at the next school board meeting and the second reading at a subsequent meeting. If passed, the policy change will take effect in the 2024-25 school year.

Seigle said the district has had 40 different book challenges during this academic year, but only six of them went to a hearing; the person challenging the book can request a hearing if they are not satisfied with the decision of the district-level committee that hears the objector’s arguments and makes a recommendation to the School Board.

Amended policy will remove the ability to call witnesses in book challenge hearings

The last update to Policy 2522 (“Challenges to adoption or use of instructional, library, or reading list materials”) in February allowed objectors to call and cross-examine witnesses. According to Seigle, the same parent (Dr. Crystal Marull) was the objector in all six hearings, and “the parent never called witnesses that supported her position but called people from our district, who we agreed could come in. But the problem that happened was, at some point, there was a disagreement in terms of interpretation of the standards for book selection; the objector had a different interpretation than our media specialists.”

Seigle said the questioning of witnesses by Marull was “very aggressive… Our folks were accused of breaking the law, publicly.”

Seigle continued, “You are all aware of the problem that occurred with examination of Garrett Jones at Terwilliger, where a series of questions were asked in such a manner to make it appear that he approved of eight-year-old children reading books about pornography and dirty magazines. And that was not the case. We were able to get that calmed down. But because of that and because of a concern – Mr. Jones had threats made, even death threats – I went to the Superintendent, and we do have a policy on threats to our employees… The Superintendent agreed threats and harassment of our employees is far more important than being able to call witnesses.”

[Editor’s note: This is the transcript of the video posted on X by Libs of TikTok that Seigle is referring to:

Marull: Mr. Jones, I believe you, too, have children. Is that correct?

Jones: Yes.

Marull: What ages are they?

Jones: 18, 16, and 13.

Marull: And would you find it appropriate if they brought this book home and were talking about dirty magazines and pornography in a K-5 environment?

Jones: I think it would open up a conversation that we would have.

Marull: So you think the book is appropriate in the K-5 environment, even though it’s referencing pornography and dirty magazines?

Jones: I think in my–what I voted for was that it would be for the three-to-five age group.

Marull: Which would be what ages?

Jones: So that would be eight to 10? 12?

Marull: So you think an eight-year-old would be appropriate, age-appropriate, to be reading about pornography and dirty magazines? From school?

Jones: Yes.]

Seigle: “The statute… only requires that we let them proffer evidence.”

Seigle continued, “The statute… only requires that we let them proffer evidence. And as a trial lawyer, you only proffer when the judge says, ‘Okay, proffer the evidence.’ And I say, ‘This is what I think the evidence will show.’ But I don’t have to call a witness or I don’t have to provide the evidence. A proffer is merely, ‘This is what the evidence will be.’ So it does not require witnesses. So we’re going to recommend that we do away with witnesses altogether. I will tell you, the only witness called by this parent the whole time, one time, was a witness that came on and attacked the procedure and attacked us for being too aggressive and belligerent and threatening to parents.”

Senator Keith Perry’s testimony regarding “PET”

During a hearing on a challenge of the book “PET” by Akwaeke Emenzi, Senator Keith Perry appeared as a witness (his testimony can be viewed here) and asked questions about the book challenge process; Seigle objected to his questions and stated that she would continue to object to any questions he asked because he was there as a witness and not “an inquisitor.”

“Is this quasi-judicial hearing simply to intimidate parents not to bring their concerns to the School Board?… Do we want parents involved in the proceedings, or do we want them to be intimidated by an attorney that’s being paid to intimidate parents, not to investigate the book?” – Senator Keith Perry

In his testimony, Perry objected to using a “quasi-judicial” hearing to respond to a book challenge from a parent and asked whether “the goal is to get to the truth – the fact of a book that we’re looking at – or is the goal of this hearing to prove the parent is wrong?… Is this quasi-judicial hearing simply to intimidate parents not to bring their concerns to the School Board?… Do we want parents involved in the proceedings, or do we want them to be intimidated by an attorney that’s being paid to intimidate parents, not to investigate the book?”

Seigle interrupted that accusing her of intimidating parents was “an inappropriate ad hominem attack… I would object to that.” Hearing Officer Dr. Bessie Jackson explained to Perry that the process follows Florida statutes, and Perry responded, “The laws that we passed did not intend to have it where a parent was put on trial, I can tell you that.”

Perry referred to the presentation that Marull had made during the hearing and said there was a great deal of specific information about the age-inappropriateness of the book in that presentation, while Seigle had simply stated that the book was appropriate. He went on to describe why he believed the book was inappropriate. 

“It is absolutely inappropriate for him to denigrate the employees of the district based on her hypothetical, which is inappropriate. I’m going to ask the School Board to disregard any statements by Mr. Perry.” – Staff Attorney Susan Seigle

Marull asked Perry whether he believed it was appropriate for a district media specialist to discard information in State training materials “because I believe it is mistaken,” and Seigle said that line of questioning was “inappropriate testimony… It is absolutely inappropriate for him to denigrate the employees of the district based on her hypothetical, which is inappropriate. I’m going to ask the School Board to disregard any statements by Mr. Perry.”

Marull objected to Seigle’s objection, saying her question was not based on a hypothetical but “documented in the record from [a previous hearing].” Dr. Jackson later pointed out that Perry “is not a certified media specialist,” and Seigle objected that he was presenting opinions, not facts. Perry said that as a legislator, his professional opinion was that “we do have a law on the books that says certain books are not appropriate for certain age groups… To say that ‘any book is appropriate’ goes against Florida statutes.”

Perry also argued that the statute places the burden of proof on the School Board, while Alachua County’s process places the burden on the parent: “It is the role of the School Board to present why it should not be [removed], not [the parent].”

Seigle recommends that the district stop posting videos of book hearings to YouTube

At the May 8 workshop, Seigle said she had a second issue and “would like to get the sense of the board: We have been videotaping the hearings. Once the issue happened with Mr. Jones – at the time that happened, the videotape of that hearing was not published on our YouTube site. But we subsequently started doing that.” She said that after the clip of Jones went viral on X, “we decided perhaps it wasn’t best to have it on a fully-accessible site all the time [but] have it available as a public records request.” She said the videos are available to School Board members.

Seigle said comments had been made about her online, “based on a comment I made about ‘A is for Activist,’ accusing me of being communist. Now, I’ve got broad shoulders, and that doesn’t bother me, but that’s the problem when you have the social media we have available now.” She said there is no obligation under the statute to record the hearings and that she has also hired a court reporter to create a transcript of the hearings, “and that’s expensive,” but she felt that it would be perceived as more impartial than having someone in her office create the transcript. She also told the board that if you compute an hourly rate by dividing her salary by the number of hours she works, “To date, it’s cost us, in terms of time and expense, nearly $40,000 to handle these things.”

The State has not responded to appeals of decisions on books

According to Seigle, three of the books challenged by Marull have been appealed to the State and are waiting on a magistrate appointment. She said a total of 13 books state-wide have been appealed, but “no magistrate has been appointed yet, and I don’t know why. Our first one has been there since February.” She added that the magistrate can only determine whether there has been due process: “The magistrate can’t say, ‘Take that book off the shelf, Alachua County, you shouldn’t have kept it there.'”

Questions from the board

Member Sarah Rockwell said she thought it was a “fair compromise” to make a video of the hearings but not post it on YouTube “because what happened with Mr. Jones was not even someone who lives in this state who decided to attack him.” She suggested using software to produce a transcript instead of hiring a court reporter, and Seigle said she “never thought of that.”

Member Tina Certain asked how a member of the public can get a copy of a video of a book challenge hearing, and Seigle said the district burns it to a CD and charges $3. Seigle said that process lets the district “have a record of where it’s gone. You know, with a public records request, we can’t ask them who they are or why they want it, but at least we know when it has been requested and when it has gone out, and hopefully that would help with some of the problems we’ve had, with some of the accusations and some of the other things that have gone on.”

Certain asked whether eliminating witnesses could raise questions about due process, and Board Attorney David Delaney said it’s a new process and “all the districts are still figuring it out.”

Chair Diyonne McGraw agreed with making recordings of the hearings because “this is a very political issue… The concern is, if you don’t, we witness enough behavior – to me, inappropriate behavior, and I’ll say that on the record – by people who’ve come and presented and challenging people at the dais, so I do think we need video to protect ourselves, and I don’t want to see any employee go through – at Terwilliger, what happened.”

The policy will have two votes with a public hearing between the votes.