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 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 FAQ is a follow up to the DOJ’s previous technical assistance bulletin- Revised ADA Requirements: Service Animals which was issued in 2011.

The 2015 FAQ can be found here:FAQ Service Animals

The 2011 DOJ technical Assistance Document can be found here: 2011- Revised ADA Requirements-Service Animals

If you have questions regarding Service Animals and the ADA or how the ADA impacts on your municipality or school, please contact Dina Atwood or Patti Page

Topics will include: Role of general education teachers in special education and the educating of 504 students; overuse and misuse of paraprofessional services in IEPs; over and under identification of students for special education and/or 504; roles of school administrators in special education and 504; supervisory union-wide duties under Section 504; and, role of general education teachers in special education and the educating of 504 students. For a complete listing of the topics and to register online, please go to VPA.

The workshop will be held on March 24th, 2015, 9:00am -3:30pm, at the VPA Offices, Montpelier, VT. Cost is $199 (includes materials, lunch & break) Registration deadline: March 18th, 2015. Space is limited to 30.

The Frequently Asked Questions document can be found at FAQ

If you have questions regarding this guidance, FERPA, or privacy issues for schools, please contact Dina Atwood or Patti Page

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 .

The workshop is designed to help school administrators, human resource professionals and business managers stay up to date and compliant with the myriad of labor and employment laws which affect school districts and supervisory unions. Topics covered will be: labor negotiations and collective bargaining; Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Acts (as amended), FLSA Wage and Hour compliance; how to hire, evaluate, discipline and fire personnel; what to cover in an exit interview; how to craft effective performance plans; and, relevant legislative updates to employment laws.

Registration is through the VPA and the deadline is January 7, 2015

If you have questions about the seminar or general labor, human resources, collective bargaining negotiations, or personnel matters contact Dina Atwood or Steven Stitzel.

The general rule under Title IX is that public schools (as recipients of federal funding) may not exclude, separate, deny benefits to, or otherwise treat differently any person on the basis of sex in its educational programs or activities unless expressly authorized to do so under Title IX or Department of Education’s implementing regulations. 34 C.F.R. section 106.34(a). However the regulations do provide that a recipient (school district) may intentionally separate students by sex: for contact sports in physical education classes; classes or portions of classes in elementary and secondary schools that deal primarily with human sexuality; and non-vocational classes and extracurricular activities within a coeducational, non-vocational elementary or secondary school if certain criteria are met.

The guidance document can be found at GUIDANCE

If you have further questions about the guidance or Title IX, Equal Protection Clause, Title IV or Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) matters, Dina Atwood or Patti Page can assist you.

The case involved Marcel and Veronica Cyr, whose two children attended a school in the Addison Rutland Supervisory Union (“ARSU”). Mr. Cyr was described as a large man who spoke loudly at meetings where he frequently raised concerns about his son’s education and other issues related to the school. School officials cited behavior they found threatening and intimidating, such as Mr. Cyr’s driving by the Principal’s office and honking and giving “the finger.” The Superintendent reported receiving a “professional opinion” that Mr. Cyr could be a threat to the school. Citing Mr. Cyr’s conduct, ARSU issued notices of trespass against Mr. Cyr, banning him from all property owned by ARSU for a two year period. Because of the notices against trespass, Mr. Cyr was unable to attend several school board meetings which were held on school property.

The Court rejected Mr. Cyr’s claim that he had a constitutional right to attend school board meetings, holding that there is no First Amendment right to attend municipal meetings. However, the Court found that singling him out and categorically banning him from all ARSU property was too broad of a restriction on Mr. Cyr’s freedom of expression, and that ARSU had failed to provide adequate alternative channels of communication.

The Court also ruled that ARSU had deprived Mr. Cyr of procedural due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court premised this ruling on a determination that Mr. Cyr had a strong interest in attending school board meetings. Because there was no protocol or meaningful opportunity to contest or appeal the no-trespasses, the Court found ARSU deprived him of a protected interest without due process. For additional information on school district and supervisory union governance matters, please contact Dina Atwood or Bob Fletcher at SP&F.