Vermont parent to be paid $150,000 in lawsuit over ban from school meetings
By Brad Matthews Watchdog Arena

LINK

Former Benson, Vermont resident Marcel Cyr was awarded $147,500 Monday after winning a lawsuit against the Addison Rutland Supervisory Union. He had been banned from all school grounds in the district because school officials were frightened of him.

The ACLU took up Cyr’s case on free speech grounds, and in September federal judge J. Garvan Murtha found that Cyr’s rights to free speech had been infringed upon by the school district.

In his decision, Judge Murtha wrote that “The ARSU’s categorical ban was not tailored to respond to the specific threat that Mr. Cyr potentially posed, a threat that was never articulated as anything more specific than a potential risk of violence to (the school’s principal and its director of special services) or their staff,” according to Vermont Today.

In September 2011 and March 2012, Cyr had been given no trespass orders by the district. School officials apparently feared the man for his large stature, loud voice and harsh comments about his son’s education. Cyr and his family moved out of Benson later in 2012.

No threats had ever been attributed to Cyr and his wife, who expressed their discontent mainly by hanging signs on their cars and passing out flyers detailing their various grievances with the school.

Cyr’s second no-trespass order was issued after a psychologist- who was hired to evaluate Cyr as part of an agreement ending his first no-trespass order- expressed serious concerns about the risks he apparently posed to school officials. Notably, this psychologist never interviewed Cyr during her investigations into his psyche.

ACLU executive director Allen Gilbert said Monday that “This is a particularly worrisome case. We’re talking about a guy who was worried about his kid’s education and was trying to bring attention to what he thought the problems were and he was told he couldn’t come to the meetings,” according to Vermont Today.

This article was written by a contributor of Watchdog Arena, Franklin Center’s network of writers, bloggers, and citizen journalists.

ACLU executive director Allen Gilbert said Monday that “This is a particularly worrisome case. We’re talking about a guy who was worried about his kid’s education and was trying to bring attention to what he thought the problems were and he was told he couldn’t come to the meetings,” according to Vermont Today.


District, barred parent reach deal

LINK

A former Benson man who prevailed in a federal court battle over his right to attend school board meetings reached a $147,500 settlement with the Addison Rutland Supervisory Union.

In September, federal Judge J. Garvan Murtha found that the school district violated Marcel Cyr’s right to free speech when they barred him from attending or entering schools in the school district.

After months of court-ordered mediation over damages after Murtha’s decision, the American Civil Liberties Union in Vermont — which represented Cyr — and the supervisory union reached a deal that ACLU Executive Director Allen Gilbert said was probably the best Cyr could hope for.

“You have to think about what a jury might award in these cases,” Gilbert said Monday. “Civil rights cases are hard because they can be very expensive to bring, and even if you prevail the award might not be much.”

Cyr was served no-trespass orders in September 2011 and March 2012 after school officials said they feared for their safety due to Cyr’s size, loud voice and sometimes harsh comments about the education his son was receiving at the Benson Village School. Cyr and his family moved out of Benson in 2012.

The family will receive about $40,000 of the award, Gilbert said, with the remainder going to court fees and legal expenses.

Regardless of the settlement amount, Gilbert said, the case served as a powerful message to school districts that parents and members of the public can’t be lightly denied access to open meetings.

“This is a particularly worrisome case. We’re talking about a guy who was worried about his kid’s education and was trying to bring attention to what he thought the problems were and he was told he couldn’t come to the meetings,” Gilbert said. “Basic rights were taken away. Schools need really good reasons to serve no-trespass orders. This case is a win for everyone who cares for education, democracy and how public policy is done.”

From the school district’s side, Superintendent Ron Ryan said Monday that he would rather lose a lawsuit than risk the safety of teachers, school staff, students and parents.

“We’re always looking at safety first,” Ryan said. “That’s what’s so difficult here. From a superintendent’s standpoint I’ll always look at safety first whether I’ve lost a case or not.”

That said, Ryan said that moving forward the school district would look at taking the advice of Murtha, who in his 30-page ruling said alternatives to barring Cyr included paying a police officer to stand guard at school board meetings.

“From this point forward I guess if we suspect someone is being unruly we’ll hire a law enforcement officer to stand guard,” Ryan said. “It could be expensive but that’s what we have to do.”

No threats were ever attributed to Cyr. He and his wife protested the school district by hanging signs on their cars and handing out fliers listing their grievances with the school.

But the school district served Cyr his second no-trespass order after Dr. Nancy Cotton — a psychologist hired to evaluate Cyr as part of a legal agreement that ended the first no-trespass order — told school officials she had serious concerns that he posed risks to them.

While she never interviewed Cyr, the ruling said, Cotton told school officials she saw “escalating patterns of behaviors” from Cyr.

Cotton said she was also concerned about comments posted on the Internet.

Murtha wrote in his decision that the school’s response to safety concerns went beyond the bounds of protection.

“Protecting the safety of school staff is undoubtedly a significant government interest,” the judge wrote. “... A categorical ban of a single individual from open school board meetings, however, is not narrowly tailored and does not leave open ample alternative channels of communication.”

“The ARSU’s categorical ban was not tailored to respond to the specific threat that Mr. Cyr potentially posed, a threat that was never articulated as anything more specific than a potential risk of violence to (the school’s principal and its director of special services) or their staff,” the judge added.

@Tagline:brent.curtis @rutlandherald.com

Judge: School district discriminated against critic
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that central Vermont school officials discriminated against a man who criticized the district. Officials responded to the criticism by banning the man from school property and preventing him from attending School Board meetings.

U.S. District Court Judge J. Garvan Murtha ruled the Addison-Rutland Supervisory Union discriminated against Marcel Cyr, formerly of Benson, for not allowing him to go onto any school property in the district.

Cyr was critical of the education his son was receiving in the district.

Murtha's decision said the district took the action because some staff members were afraid of Cyr.

The Cyrs were also known to put up lawn signs and decorate their car with slogans encouraging defeat of the school budget.

The Vermont Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Cyr in the lawsuit, said Murtha ruled that the district's no-trespass order amounted to "a categorical ban on expressive speech."

"This is a great ruling for free speech and open government in Vermont," Vermont ACLU Executive Director Allen Gilbert said. "What the ruling says is that schools and towns cannot skirt the Constitution by deciding that they don't want to hear someone's critical voice."

The school district's attorney, Pietro Lynn, said he was deeply disappointed by the decision, and the district is considering all options, including a possible appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"We believe this places a very heavy burden on school districts and school administrators when confronted with potentially dangerous members of the community," Lynn said.

Court: School may not sue over public records request
Parent sought letter used to bar him from school property; district responded by taking him to court

LINK

A judge at Vermont Superior Court in Rutland has ruled against the Addison Rutland Supervisory Union in a case that had the potential to make it more difficult for Vermonters to examine public records.

Marcel Cyr, the parent of a special needs student in the Benson Village School, will be given the letter he requested from the Addison Rutland Supervisory Union that had led to his being barred from school property.

Last spring, the school district sued Cyr to prevent him from obtaining the letter, written to the school from a “mental health professional” warning that he could be dangerous.

Judge William Cohen has dismissed the school’s lawsuit.

Cohen ruled that a lawsuit by a public agency to prevent the release of records is not permitted by the Vermont’s public records law. Allowing such a lawsuit, the judge wrote, “would subvert the statutory framework established by the Legislature,” Cohen wrote. He added that the court “will not read into the statute the option for an agency to circumvent the procedures laid out in the statute by filing” a lawsuit.

“The Public Records Act was not enacted for the special benefit of a school district holding records,” Cohen’s ruling continued. “Rather, it was enacted for the benefit of member of the public seeking access to these records.”

Cyr’s special needs daughter attended the Benson Village School operated by the Addison Rutland Supervisory Union. School officials became concerned by the intensity of his advocacy for her and issued a warning, at first verbal and then written, from a self-described mental health professional that he could be dangerous. Using the warning, the school obtained a no-trespass order from the Fair Haven Police Department barring Cyr from district schools and offices.

The mental health professional asked the district to keep her identity secret, court papers stated, out of fear for her own safety. The district complied.

When Cyr made a request under the Vermont Public Records Act to see the letter, the district went to court to argue against providing the document. In court in early October, attorney Pietro Lynn, representing the district, said that school officials were trying to balance the safety concerns of the mental health provider and the requirements of the Public Records Act.