The plaintiff had requested emails between the VSBA, the Vermont Principal’s Association, and the Vermont Superintendents Association. The VSBA responded that it was a private nonprofit corporation, and, accordingly, not a “public agency” subject to the PRA. Plaintiff premised his PRA claim on the theory that the VSBA is the functional equivalent of a public agency and thus must be subject to the PRA.

The Court held that there is no general “functional-equivalency” concept applicable to the PRA. Instead, whether a non-governmental entity can be subject to the statute turns on whether the entity is an “instrumentality” – a term listed within the statute’s definition of “public agency” – of the state or a municipality. The Court said “the determination whether a particular entity is an ‘instrumentality’ must be made on a case-by-case basis.” The key determination is whether the entity has been “delegated responsibility for performing a uniquely governmental function.”

Although the VSBA is involved in aspects of public education, which is a fundamental governmental function, the Court reasoned that the VSBA does not provide public education but instead only provides services to member school boards. The Court thus held that the VSBA is not an instrumentality subject to the PRA because it has not been delegated responsibility for performing a uniquely governmental obligation. Going forward, the Court’s “instrumentality” analysis will serve as binding precedent for determining whether non-governmental entities are subject to the PRA.

While the Vermont Open Meeting Law (“OML”) was not discussed by the Court in its McVeigh decision, the case may have implications for that statute as well. The OML’s definition of “public body” includes an “instrumentality of the State or one or more of its political subdivisions.” Therefore, the Court’s holding in McVeigh as to what constitutes an “instrumentality” may guide resolution of OML disputes over whether a group is a “public body” subject to that statute.

The Supreme Court’s McVeigh opinion is available here.

The guidance includes a  Parent and Educator Resource Guide ; a Dear Colleague Letter and fact sheet on the use of restraint and seclusion in public schools; and Dear Colleague Letter and fact sheet on the rights of students with disabilities in public charter schools.

The Parent and Educator Resource Guide to Section 504 in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, issued by the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), provides a broad overview of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504). The guidance describes school districts’ nondiscrimination responsibilities, including obligations to provide educational services to students with disabilities, and outlines the steps parents can take to ensure that their children secure all of the services they are entitled to receive.

The Department’s May 15, 2012, Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document suggested best practices to prevent the use of restraint or seclusion, recommending that school districts never use physical restraint or seclusion for disciplinary purposes and never use mechanical restraint, and that trained school officials use physical restraint or seclusion only if a child’s behavior poses imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others. The DCL and question and answer document released today offer additional information about the legal limitations on use of restraint or seclusion to assist school districts in meeting their obligations to students with disabilities.

The Dear Colleague Letter and question and answer documents regarding Charter Schools will help update educators, parents, students, and other stakeholders to better understand the rights of students with disabilities in public charter schools under Section 504 and IDEA. These documents provide information about how to provide equal opportunity in compliance with Section 504 in key areas such as charter school recruitment, application, admission, enrollment and disenrollment, accessibility of facilities and programs, and nonacademic and extracurricular activities.

In addition to these documents, the Department also released a Know Your Rights document designed for parents to provide a brief overview of the rights of public charter school students with disabilities and the legal obligations of charter schools under Section 504 and the IDEA.

If you have questions regarding any of this information, please contact Dina Atwood at 802-660-2555.

The Dear Colleague Letter can be found at
Dear Colleague Letter on Transgender Students and Title IX

If you have questions regarding Title IX or how Title IX impacts on your school, please contact Dina Atwood

It is important for all who are defined as mandatory reporters—which includes virtually all school employees and those under contract with school district to provide services to children – to review this information to understand their individual responsibilities (and potential liability) under the law. The page emphasizes that the law requires reports to be made within 24 hours by the legally mandated reporter, and the mandated reporter will be liable if a timely report is not made. The page recommends that, where several people in the same organization need to report, that they do so as a group. Follow the link for specific information.

The guidance consists of:
Guiding Principles for Providing High-Quality Education in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings

Dear Colleague Letter on Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for Students with Disabilities in Correctional Facilities

Dear Colleague Letter on the Civil Rights of Students in Juvenile Justice Residential Facilities

Dear Colleague Letter on Access to Pell Grants for Students in Juvenile Justice Facilities

The guidance is a continuation of the recommendations found in My Brother’s Keeper Task Force report released in May of 2014.

if you have questions regarding this guidance or civil rights and special education issues for schools, please contact Dina Atwood or Patti Page .