February 8th Is Almost Here!

Have you settled for the 2021-22 contract year but still need to approve the negotiated agreement at your upcoming meeting?  Are you still negotiating?  If so, this post is for you!  For everyone else, feel free to go back to looking at prop bets for the super bowl (or keep reading for a quick refresher on negotiations timelines during crunch time).

The Industrial Relations Act requires the board and teachers association to submit to mandatory mediation or factfinding if the board and association have not reached agreement by February 8th, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to forgo them.  Whether you are planning to approve your agreement next Monday (February 8, 2021) or still negotiating, this post will walk you through the deadlines you need to keep in mind. 

We’re Settled and Approving the Agreement Next Week.  Great! Based on the timing of February 2021 board meetings, you’ll likely squeak in just under the radar.  As long as both parties have approved your agreement by February 8, 2021, you should be just fine.  However, if your board meeting is after February 8th, if the teachers’ association will approve the agreement after February 8th, or if you’re still negotiating, keep reading.

Failure to Conclude Negotiations by February 8th.  If the parties have not reached agreement by February 8th, they must engage in factfinding and mediation with a “resolution officer” if one of them files a petition with the Commission of Industrial Relations requesting it.  However, they are not required to engage in factfinding if both agree in writing to forego it.  We recommend that you consult with your school district’s attorney before February 8th if it appears that you will not be able to settle negotiations or will have to approve your agreement after that date, even if you have agreed.  

Fact Finding Process.  If you are considering submitting to the factfinding/resolution process, it can be a complex endeavor compressed into a very short period of time. The “resolution officer” will be in charge of the process.  Among other things, he or she will:

1. Determine whether the issues are ready for adjudication;

2. Identify the terms and conditions of employment that remain  in dispute and negotiated in good faith but not resolved;

3. Choose the offer that he/she believes was the most reasonable final offer on each issue in dispute; and

4. Issue a decision and recommendations by March 25th.

Key in this process is making sure you understand which issues are still in dispute and making a lawful and prudent reasonable final offer.

Time Flies.  Time flies, especially from February 8th through March 25th.  The board and association have slightly more than six weeks to assemble their records and data, perform a comparability study (this is not required, but it is advisable), present the information and arguments, and give the resolution officer enough time to review it and issue a decision and recommendations.

Conclude Fact Finding by March 25th.  The resolution officer must conclude the fact finding process and issue a decision and recommendations by March 25th or within 25 days after the certification of state aid for the contract year in question, whichever occurs later.  With the long Unicameral session, that could be much later this year, into mid-summer.  If the parties have not reached agreement on or before the deadline for fact finding to conclude, either one may file a petition with the Commission within 14 days asking it to resolve the industrial dispute.

Commission of Industrial Relations Decision.  The Commission will limit its consideration to those issues that the resolution officer determined that the parties negotiated in good faith but could not agree upon. The Commission will decide the case based on its traditional criteria of comparability and prevalence, not on the resolution officer’s standard of the “most reasonable final offer.”  It must issue its decision for the contract year by September 15th.  

If you are a KSB client and you believe that you will not reach an agreement, please let us know immediately.  If you have any questions about the February 8th deadline or any negotiation issue, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com or (402) 804-8000.

Biden’s Been a Busy Boy!

Whether you love, hate, or are indifferent to President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. and his administration, we can all agree on one thing:  the president has been a busy man since taking office.  On his first day in office alone, President Biden signed 17 executive orders, memorandums, and proclamations.  Not surprisingly, many of these actions were taken to directly, intentionally, and immediately reverse many of former President Donald Trump’s policies.  Let’s take a look at some of our 46th president’s actions and what they might mean for schools.

Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation

In Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), the United States Supreme Court held that Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of . . . sex” covers discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.  On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order requiring all federal agencies to comply with Bostock.  While Bostock was a Title VII employment case and the SCOTUS made clear in its opinion that it was offering no opinion on sex-segregated bathrooms and locker rooms under Title IX, the Biden administration made its position clear in the executive order:

Under Bostock’s reasoning, laws that prohibit sex discrimination — including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) . . . — prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, so long as the laws do not contain sufficient indications to the contrary.

This position is directly contrary to the one espoused by the Trump administration.  In fact, President Trump’s Department of Education released a guidance document saying the opposite of Biden’s EO the week before President Trump left office.  Don’t be surprised if there is a push for regulatory or other change in the near future that would require schools to ensure that there is no discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation in the performance of contracts or activities that are funded in whole or in part by federal funds.  There may also be major changes in the federal government’s approach to this issue, possibly including guidance or regulations that will require schools to allow students to use bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity.  

Race and Sex Stereotyping

On September 22, 2020, then-President Trump issued an Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping that prohibited government contractors and some federal grant recipients from using any workplace training “that inculcates in its employees any form of race or sex-stereotyping or any form of race or sex scapegoating.”  On his first day in office President Biden issued his own executive order that rescinded Trump’s executive order.  Generally, Biden’s executive order requires federal “executive departments and agencies [to] recognize and work to redress inequities in their policies and programs that serve as barriers to equal opportunity.”  The executive order also requires federal agencies to review and provide a report within 200 days reflecting findings on “[t]he operational status and level of institutional resources available to offices or divisions within the agency that are responsible for advancing civil rights or whose mandates specifically include serving underrepresented or disadvantaged communities.”  This almost certainly will include the U.S. Department of Education reviewing its policies and activities related to equal opportunity and civil rights to see if they “create or exacerbate barriers to full and equal participation by all eligible individuals.”  In other words, don’t be surprised if there are more and more invasive investigations and reviews from the Office for Civil Rights in response to complaints.  There may also be a renewed focus on disparities in student discipline based on race and equitable access to education, school resources, and school funding.   

Mask Mandate

President Biden approved yet another executive order on January 20, 2021 requiring all “on-duty or on-site Federal employees, on-site Federal contractors, and other individuals in Federal buildings and on Federal lands [to] wear masks, maintain physical distance, and adhere to other public health measures, as provided in CDC guidelines.”  The executive order also directed HHS and the CDC to work with local (i.e. school district) officials “regarding mask-wearing and other public health measures, with the goal of maximizing public compliance with, and addressing any obstacles to, mask-wearing and other public health best practices identified by CDC.”  

Although this is not a directive that applies directly to public schools, we expect forthcoming CDC guidance on school operations to include stronger wording about masking. 

Regulatory Freeze

On January 20, 2021, President Biden’s Chief of Staff issued a memorandum to the heads of all executive departments and agencies to place any pending regulations on hold until a department or agency head appointed or designated by the President after noon on January 20, 2021, reviews and approves the rule.  This won’t have any impact on the new Title IX regulations (that Biden and his administration strongly oppose) because they have already gone into effect.  However, it will put on hold any other school regulations in the pipeline that would have impacted things such as special education and others.  

NLRB

President Biden fired the Trump-appointed general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board after he refused to resign ten months before the expiration of his term.  The general counsel had a reputation for supporting pro-employer stances.  President Biden also appointed the NLRB’s sole Democrat to serve as the board’s chair.  He will fill a current vacancy with a Democrat, but the Republicans will hold a 3-2 edge on the board until at least December 16, 2022.  Nebraska schools are governed by the Commission of Industrial Relations in labor matters, so any NLRB moves will not have a direct impact on you.  However, the CIR does look to NLRB decisions on occasion, such as when it encounters an issue it has not considered previously.  This means that a more employee-friendly NLRB could have some impact on Nebraska schools.

More Executive Actions to Come

On January 22, 2021, the Biden administration issued a Fact Sheet indicating that more executive action is on the way.  These efforts include:

• Asking the U.S. Department of Agriculture to consider expanding and extending federal nutrition assistance programs.  

• Restoring collective bargaining power and worker protections by revoking Trump Executive Orders and directing federal agencies to bargain over permissible, non-mandatory subjects of bargaining when contracts are up for negotiation so that workers have a greater voice in their working conditions.      

• Develop recommendations to pay more federal employees and contractors at least $15 per hour and provide emergency paid leave to workers.

While some of these efforts may not immediately or directly affect school districts, they may gain momentum and influence state legislators to attempt to follow suit.  

COVID-19 Toolkit

The CDC has issued a COVID-19 Vaccine Communication Toolkit for Essential Workers, including people working in education.  The purpose of the toolkit is to “educate employees about COVID-19 vaccines, raise awareness about the benefits of vaccination, and address common questions and concerns.”  The toolkit includes an introductory letter, key messages, FAQs (including one specifically for employers), a slide deck, fact sheets, a newsletter, a letter to your employees, posters and flyers, and  social media messages and toolkit.  The CDC intends to add more materials to the toolkit and encourages you to check back frequently for updates.

If you have any questions about any of these topics or any future actions by the Biden Administration, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com or (402) 804-8000.

We Didn’t Start the Fire! Don’t Get Burned in an Election Year

[Note: we wrote a similar, but much funnier post on this topic last year.  Given the seriousness of the political tensions our country faces, we thought a more somber post was in order this time around.]

On January 20, 2021, Joe Biden will be sworn in as the 46th president of the United States.  Some education professionals will think this is a cause for celebration while others will experience deep concern.  In our country -- like our profession -- people of good will can and inevitably will disagree about partisan politics.  However, when you are acting in your role as a school employee or representative, you must scrupulously avoid using your position as a platform for your politics.    

Professional Ethics Governing Educators 

In both Nebraska and South Dakota, education professionals are bound by codes of ethics which prevent public schools from being used as platforms for political causes. 

Nebraska’s Rule 27

In Nebraska, certificated employees are governed by Rule 27 of the Nebraska Department of Education.  Teachers and administrators who violate Rule 27 risk losing their teaching certificate, among other possible discipline.  Several of the standards in Rule 27 prevent a staff member engaging in political or partisan activity at school:

• The educator shall permit the student to pursue reasonable independent scholastic effort, and shall permit the student access to varying viewpoints.  (004.03A).

• The educator shall not deliberately suppress or distort subject matter for which the educator is responsible.  (004.03B).

• The educator shall not use institutional privileges for private gain or to promote political candidates, political issues, or partisan political activities.  (004.04B).

• The educator shall, with reasonable diligence, attend to the duties of his or her professional position.  (004.04F).

• The educator shall use time on duty and leave time for the purpose for which intended.  (004.06G).

• The educator shall allow others who hold and express differing opinions or ideas to freely express such ideas.

• The educator shall not show disrespect for or lack of acceptance of others.  (005.09C). 

South Dakota’s Code of Professional Ethics

In South Dakota, the teachers’ code of professional ethics is found in article 24:08:03:02 of the South Dakota Code.  That law requires all teachers and education service providers to: 

• Take precautions to distinguish between their personal views and those of the local school district or governing body (24:08:03:02 (1));

• Not interfere with a colleague's exercise of political and citizenship rights and responsibilities (24:08:03:02 (3)); and  

• Not exploit the local school district or governing body to promote political candidates or partisan political activities. (24:08:03:02 (5)).

Other States 

Educators in other states must also be aware of their state’s licensure laws related to professional conduct.  You should check for relevant information from both your state education agency and any applicable state laws.

Other Laws Limiting Teachers From Engaging in Political Activity in the Classroom 

Nebraska’s Political Accountability and Disclosure Act

If professional consequences weren’t enough, any school employee who engages in political activities while working for a school or using school resources (like their school-issued computer) can violate Nebraska’s Political Accountability and Disclosure Act.  Section 49-14,101.02(2) makes clear that a school official or employee may not use personnel, resources, property, or funds under his or her official care and control for the purpose of supporting a political candidate or a ballot issue.  “Candidate” and “ballot issue” are defined broadly and include most candidates for state and federal office and issues that may show up on the ballot.  The Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission (Commission) has explained that this means a school employee may not engage in political activity during office hours or while otherwise performing their duties.  The Commission has fined school employees and other public employees for violating these prohibitions.

South Dakota’s Attorney General Decision.

In South Dakota, the state attorney general has indicated that individuals who engage in political advocacy while they are working for schools or other government agencies also run afoul of the law.  In Official Opinion No. 88-28, Expenditure of Public Funds on Election Issues (June 29, 1988), the South Dakota Attorney General warned that public employees may engage in political advocacy “strictly in their individual capacities as private citizens.”  The opinion continues that public employees engaging in political advocacy at work “raises serious constitutional questions.”

Other States

Again, Nebraska and South Dakota are not alone in having state laws or administrative opinions that limit public employees’ ability to use public resources in support of their personal political views.  Educators in other states should familiarize themselves with their state’s laws on political accountability and the use of public time and resources.  

Wait -- I have First Amendment Rights, Don’t I? 

This is America, and we all have First Amendment rights.  In fact, the First Amendment rights of educators are more robust than those of private employees. This is because public employers are “state actors” governed by the First Amendment, unlike private employers.  Schools must respect their employees’ rights to speak “as a private citizen” on “matters of public concern.”  You’ll recognize those phrases from iconic cases like Pickering, Garcetti, and Connick.  

However, “when a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom. . . When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.”  Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). 

Dodge v. Evergreen Sch. Dist. No. 114, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135581(W.D. Wash. 2020) involved a teacher who was attending an inservice  when no students were present.  While walking from his car to the building, the teacher wore his MAGA hat.  He took it off when he got inside the building. After the training, the teacher’s principal expressed concerns about his MAGA hat.  The next day, the teacher again wore his MAGA hat while walking to and from his vehicle at an off-campus training.  When the principal next saw the teacher, she approached the teacher and exclaimed: "OK, what is the f***ing deal with you and your hat!" The principal then berated the teacher for 15 minutes, calling him a "racist," "bigot," "homophobe," "liar," and "hateful person." The principal told the teacher to get union representation because he "would need it" next time they spoke.

The teacher sued, claiming that the principal had violated his first amendment rights to free speech.  The court held that the principal’s isolated tirade did not constitute a "campaign of harassment," but that her alleged threat encouraging the teacher to seek union representation suggested future discipline if he continued wearing the MAGA hat.  

The court included this caution: "As a final note, these are trying times and [the teacher]'s allegations highlight the importance of courtesy between those who disagree politically. The Court urges the parties and anyone else reading this to be respectful in all things."

Note that the teacher in this case was not wearing his MAGA hat in the presence of students.  As we’ve noted above, if he had done so, he may have exposed himself to legal liability separate and apart from his confrontation with his principal. 

A Two-Part Test

Courts apply a two-part test to determine if a public employee’s speech is protected by the First Amendment.  The first step really asks 2 questions: did the employee speak (a) as a private citizen (b) on a matter of public concern.  If the answer is “no” (to either inquiry) the First Amendment does not protect the employee’s speech.  If the answer is “yes” (to both inquiries), the First Amendment may protect the employee’s speech.

To determine whether an employee is speaking as a private citizen, the fact that an employee is at the workplace is not necessarily dispositive.  Instead, the court will look to whether the employee spoke pursuant to their official duties (which is, of course, more likely in the workplace).  Courts generally  construe a teacher’s “official duties” as applying to all interactions with students and colleagues in relation to school matters or activities. Under the Garcetti case, if an employee is speaking pursuant to his or her official duties the speech is not protected, in large part because the employee is not speaking as a private citizen.  Nebraska has state statutes which affirm this concept for public employees.

To determine whether an employee is speaking about a matter of public concern, courts look to the “content, form, and context” of the statement, along with the employee’s motive in making the statement.  Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983). Speech related to a subject that would be of public concern is not protected if the expression addresses only the personal effect upon the employee, or if the only point of the speech was to further some purely private interest.  This means that if an employee speaks out of private interest about a personal grievance with school administrators, the speech is not protected under the First Amendment.  This is true even though the public has an interest in the administration of the school district, and even if the statement is not made pursuant to the employee’s official duties.

If an employee is speaking as a private citizen regarding a matter of public concern, we turn to the second part of the test.  A public employer can only take action against the individual if it has an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public. Courts will balance the school’s interest in maintaining order and efficient operations against the liberty interests of the employee to determine if an adequate justification exists.

Conclusion

We know that political feelings are running high, fraying nerves that are already rubbed raw by COVID.  If you need to vent, by all means, open your window and shout “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.” If you want to celebrate, crank the tunes, pop the champagne and dance around your living room in your underwear.  But the place to express your political beliefs is your private life -- not your classroom, not your school-affiliated Twitter account and not even in the teachers’ lounge.  If your school district has questions about what is acceptable political speech in a school context, contact Karen, Steve, Coady, Jordan or Tyler.  (Don’t bother Bobby for a few days.  He is busy celebrating the birth of the newest KSB kid, Tylie Kenna.)

A New Year for New Boards

Many school administrators preparing for their January board meetings have asked us about board actions required or typically taken at the first meeting of the year, so we have prepared a short list of frequently-asked questions for your reference.

What if I Don’t Have Enough Old Board Members to Constitute a Quorum to Open the January Board Meeting?

Simply open the meeting with your new board members.  The new board members may sign their oaths before the meeting opens, or you may open the meeting and swear in the new board members as the first thing you do.

May the Old Board Members Act on the Board’s Old Business and the New Members Act on Its New Business?

No.  At most, board members whose terms have expired may perform ceremonial acts.  They may not take any formal action because they automatically lose their authority to act on behalf of the school district when their terms expire, regardless of when their replacements are seated.  Some districts mistakenly have the old board act on old business and then pass the meeting over to the new board to deal with new business.  However, this should be avoided because it exposes the board to a charge of having nonmembers take action on behalf of the school district.

Who Runs the Meeting if the Former Board President is No Longer a Board Member?

The vice-president may run the meeting in the absence of a current president.  Otherwise, the board may vote to appoint someone to act as an interim “chairman” until the new board president is elected.

Tell Us About This Oath of Office

Section 11-101 of the Nebraska statutes contains an oath of office that “state, district, county, precinct, township, municipal, and especially appointed officers” must take.  However, in Frans v. Young, 30 Neb. 360, 46 N.W. 528 (1890), the Nebraska Supreme Court held that boards of education are not required to take the oath prescribed by this section, because the term “district” applies only to judicial districts, and the term “municipal” to villages, towns, and cities.  Courts have held that denying a public official the right to take an oath might well violate the official’s First Amendment rights.  On the other hand, there is a growing consensus among courts that requiring an oath like the one from Nebraska’s statutes is probably unconstitutional.  Bottom line - if board members desire to take the oath, let them.  If board members object to taking the oath, don’t force them to do so.

Election of Officers

Section 79-564 requires all Class III school districts to annually elect a president, vice-president, and secretary.  Section 79-586 also requires the board to have a treasurer.  While not required, these elections have traditionally occurred at the January meeting.  The secretary does not need to be a member of the board.  If the secretary is a member of the board, an assistant secretary may be named and his or her duties and compensation set by the board.  The general duties and obligations of the president, vice president, secretary, and treasurer can be found scattered throughout sections 79-564 to 79-597.

Election of Officers by Secret Ballot

Unlike roll call votes taken by the board, section 84-1413 allows you to elect officers by secret ballot as long as the “total number of votes for each candidate” is recorded in the minutes.  A simple motion and second then allows the board to cast secret ballots.  The number of votes for each candidate must be recorded in the minutes.

What Do We Do About Ties?
A related question for the January meeting each year is how to deal with ties for officer elections.  Election of officers is required by statute, but there is no statutory process for breaking the tie.  We encourage you to review your policies to see if they include a method to break any officer election ties.  Boards that have adopted KSB’s Policy 2002 likely have approved one of the methods for breaking ties so that you do not have dozens of failed motions or tie votes.  

The Committee on American Civics

In 2019, the Unicameral changed the name of the Committee on Americanism to the Committee on American Civics.  Boards used to appoint this committee at the beginning of each school year.  You now must appoint three board members to this committee at the beginning of each calendar year.  There is a whole laundry list of requirements for this committee, including holding no fewer than two public meetings annually.  The board must also receive public testimony at one of those meetings.  Remember, the legislature took a no nonsense approach with this requirement, stating:  “Every school board, the State Board of Education, and the superintendent of each school district in the state shall be held directly responsible in the order named for carrying out this section.  Neglect thereof by any employee may be considered a cause for dismissal.”  You can view all of the committee’s duties and responsibilities here in section 79-724.  The board may, but is not required, to appoint members of any other committees at the January meeting.

Designating a Bank

Section 77-2350 requires boards of education to designate the district’s bank, capital stock financial institution, or qualifying mutual financial institution “from time to time . . . by formal resolution duly recorded.”  The designated bank or financial institution must be situated within the district’s boundaries.  If no such entity is located within the district’s boundaries, the board may designate any such institution within the state.  Some boards make this designation at the first meeting of the calendar year, while others designate a financial institution in policy.  

Designating a Law Firm

Many boards designate the law firms(s) that they will work with during the next calendar year.  While such action is not technically required, it does clarify a school’s authority to work with legal counsel under section 79-513 that states:  “The school board or board of education of any school district in this state may pay from its school funds for the legal services of an attorney employed by the board when it deems legal counsel necessary or advisable.” 

Electronic Meetings

As we told you previously, Executive Order 20-36 allows school boards to hold electronic meetings through January 31, 2021 “so long as there is made available at such meeting access to members of the public and to members of the media.”  Remember that ALL other provisions of Nebraska’s Open Meetings Act continue to apply.  See our December 2, 2020 blog post for more details!

We hope this information will help you prepare for your January meeting.  If you have any questions about your January meeting, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com or (402) 804-8000. 

FFCRA, Taxes, 941s, and More!

Administrators, you know we love you, but if the title hasn't already signaled you to do this please do this now: hit “forward” and send this to your business officials….  Ah, there we go.  Now we’re talking to the rule followers!  

We’ve heard your questions!  Are schools entitled to tax breaks for providing FFCRA leave?  Do we get relief from the employer’s portion of social security taxes?  Does this change how we file form 941?  Was FFCRA actually extended when President Trump (finally) signed the new stimulus bill, or not?! 

We can help with the last question: FFCRA was sort of extended, on a voluntary basis.  We’ll cover more of that below.  But for all these tax questions, you know our standard response: “Call your auditor/accountant!”  There are two reasons for that.  First, we aren’t licensed to give you tax advice.  Second, when it comes to IRS codes and taxation, we have to call in a ringer.  

FFCRA, SS Tax, and Form 941. KSB reached out to  Rich Lohr of the accounting firm Porter & Company in  Sioux City, Iowa.  Rich and his colleagues provided the following summary which hits on the questions we’ve heard most from business officials regarding FFCRA leave and tax issues:

Can governmental employers who provide paid leave wages receive tax relief under the Family First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA)?

Political subdivisions, like school districts, are not defined as eligible employers under FFCRA. See Internal Revenue Service, Special Issues for Employers: Taxation and Deductibility of Tax Credits (Updated November 27, 2020). Thus, although school districts are required to provide sick and family leave wages, they are not entitled to receive tax credits for providing paid leave wages, or for health care expenses allocable to such wages. Id. Nor are they entitled to credits for employee retention. Id.

However, sick leave and family leave wages paid under FFCRA are excluded from the definition of wages under section 3111(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Families First Coronavirus Response Act, Pub. L. No. 116-127 § 7005(a), 134 Stat. 178 (2020).

School districts are therefore not required to pay the employer’s 6.2% social security tax on sick and family leave wages. See I.R.C. § 3111(a) (2018). This is the only “break” school districts are provided under FFCRA. School districts must continue to withhold the employee portion of the social security tax. Medicare taxes are not affected by this, so continue to withhold both the employer and employee share of this tax.

So, when filling out Form 941, enter your Qualified sick leave wages on Line 5a(i) in Column 1, and your Qualified family leave wages on Line 5a(ii) in column 1. The reduced multiplier of 6.2% (instead of the normal 12.4%) on these lines is how the credit is provided. Remember, that 6.2% is the amount that is still withheld from the employee’s pay.

IRS guidance states that eligible employers may also request an advance payment by submitting Form 7200 – “Advance Payment of Employer Credits Due to COVID-19”. Id. Although entitled to request an advance payment, we would encourage employers to first reduce employment tax deposits instead of filing for an advance payment.

If necessary, you can request the amount of the credit that exceeds your reduced deposits by filing Form 7200, or wait to get a refund when you claim the credits on your employment tax return (Form 941).

Also, since government employers are not Eligible Employers, they are not entitled to receive tax credits for any health care expenses allocable to paid leave they provide under the FFCRA. Special Issues for Employers: Taxation and Deductibility of Tax Credits (Updated November 27, 2020). 

If you have further questions or need assistance you can contact Rich Lohr, Porter & Company, PC, Certified Public Accountants, 4111 Floyd Blvd, Sioux City, IA 51108 (712) 239-0536.

shutterSo, there you have it, straight from the horse's mouth fingertips of someone much smarter about this stuff than us.  Of course, if you have additional questions you should direct those to Rich if you work with him or your own auditor/accountant that you rely on for tax advice for your school or ESU.  Major thanks to Rich and his colleagues for the input here!

So, is FFCRA extended?  Sort of.  The new stimulus bill allows employers to voluntarily  continue providing FFCRA to employees from January 1, 2021, through March 31, 2021.  However, even if you continue providing FFCRA leave, it is not a “new” batch of leave.  The continuation basically means that the employer voluntarily extends the end date of FFCRA from December 31, 2020, up to no later than March 31, 2021.  It does not refill leave buckets under FFCRA; it simply lets employees who have not exhausted their leave take FFCRA leave under the same rules that have been in effect since last April.

Here’s the key: most employers (but not school districts or ESUs) are incentivized to continue the existing FFCRA coverage to employees because the new stimulus extends the ability for covered employers to receive the tax credits Rich discussed above.  However, as you know by now, those credits do not apply to public employers like schools and education service agencies.

So should we comply with FFCRA voluntarily?  Maybe, but you should talk this through with your school lawyer and auditor/accountant.  Many schools are considering providing some type of COVID-related leave to employees beyond December 31, 2020, the expiration date for mandatory leave under the FFCRA for covered employers.  It appears from the new stimulus bill that the relief from the employer share of social security taxes may also continue through March 31, 2021, for public employers that continue FFCRA leave.  You’ll want to get advice from your accountant on that before making a decision on that basis.  

If we assume that’s true and your board was likely to provide some type of new COVID leave anyway, it may be worth continuing FFCRA for those employees who have not used their FFCRA allotments rather than creating “new” paid leave for everyone.  At least that way you could save the employer-side social security tax.  Again, this is just one factor you and your board should consider when implementing any new leave policies or addendums to your negotiated agreement.  The savings, if any, compared to the administrative hassle will be a local level decision that will likely vary.

If you have any questions about the non-tax-specific items in this article, please feel free to contact any one of us at KSB, or you can always call the office (402-804-8000) or drop an email to all of us by using ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.  Happy (?) New Year!

THANK YOU AND HAPPY POLITICALLY CORRECT WINTER BREAK TERM HERE!

Every year has its challenges and its ups and downs, but we’re going out on a limb to say 2020 will always hold a special place in our hearts.  COVID here.  COVID there.  Seems like COVID’s everywhere!  FFCRA you say?  Same to you!  But just in case you’ve forgotten already, here is a rundown of 2020.

 Title IX.  School’s open.  School’s closed.  Remote learning.  In person learning.  You can’t fire me because I’m gay!  What the hell’s a Wuhan?  Executive orders.  Directed health measures.  Local health departments.  The CDC.  Are we playing this season?  Impeachment.  MAGA hats at school and in the classroom.  Confederate flags.  BLM.  An Election.  Cleaning and sanitizing.  So much cleaning and sanitizing!  Masks.  I can’t wear a mask.  I don’t want to wear a mask.  Am I supposed to sneeze in my mask?  Face shields.  Plexiglass protectors.  So much social distancing and isolation that even Steve introverts and the anti-social are saying “WTF?”  PPP.  PPE.  Getting paid not to work.  Not getting paid enough to work.  Regular sick leave.  Emergency sick leave.  I’m out of sick leave!!!  Where the hell are all of the substitute teachers?  Early retirements.  Regular retirements.  So many superintendent openings!  Title IX.  Anti-maskers.  Anti-vaxxers.  Parents demanding to be paid for “teaching” their kids.  Parents realizing educators truly deserve a raise after only one week at home with e-learning.  SROs.  Rule 62 petitions.  RIP RBG.  The Zooms and webinars.  Sweet baby Jesus; how many video sessions were there in 2020?  Virtual classrooms.  Kids not showing up for e-learning.  Kids turning off their cameras.  People not realizing their camera is still on and doing . . . non-camera things!  “You’re on mute.”  The Unicameral - it’s always something!  Is it Bobby with a “y” or Bobbi with an “i”?  Which bathroom should he, she, or they use?  Did we mention Title IX?

 But there was one constant positive this year.  The teachers, administrators, board members, classified staff members, school volunteers, and other educators being there each and every day, making the best of a bad situation, and supporting the students and their education.  From all of us at KSB, we say THANK YOU!  And whether you are celebrating Christmas, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, Las Posadas, Winter Solstice, Chinese New Year, Ōmisoka, Boxing Day, Bodhi Day, Hogmanay, or something else, please have a safe and happy holiday season!  But to you, 2020, we say Happy Festivus!  You had best get ready for the Airing of Grievances!  And then we’re off to 2021!

Ho Ho Ho for your SROs!

There are as many as nine Truhe, Pruett, and Johnson children running rampant in Nebraska and its public schools.  On a totally unrelated note, many public school districts have chosen to deploy school resource officers (SROs) at their schools.  As you may recall, the Unicameral adopted LB 390 in 2019 that imposes minimum requirements regarding the deployment of peace officers in school districts as SROs.  The law requires schools to cooperate with law enforcement as provided in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that includes specific terms on training, required policies, and other topics.  As the January 1, 2021, deadline is fast-approaching, now is a great time to make sure your school has completed the necessary training, adopted the required MOU, and adopted or revised appropriate policies.

Required Training

Each school resource officer or security guard and a minimum of one administrator in each elementary or secondary school where a school resource officer or security guard is assigned must attend a minimum of twenty hours of training focused on school-based law enforcement, including, but not limited to: coursework focused on school law, student rights, understanding special needs students and students with disabilities, conflict de-escalation techniques, ethics for school resource officers, teenage brain development, adolescent behavior, implicit bias training, diversity and cultural awareness, trauma-informed responses, and preventing violence in school settings.  KSB offers the required training in a video-on-demand series.  You can learn more about this training here.  

Required MOU

Schools must have an MOU in place with the law enforcement agency or security agency no later than January 1, 2021.  Schools have two choices:  (1) use the Nebraska Department of Education's model MOU, or (2) draft your own.  Your school’s MOU may “include any other procedures and provisions the school district and the law enforcement agency or security agency mutually deem appropriate” as long as it is “substantially similar” to NDE’s model MOU.  NDE’s model MOUs are available here (law enforcement agency) or here (security agency).  While NDE’s model MOU is a good start, we strongly recommend that you make substantial additions to it.  We have found that the NDE template does not address many substantive areas that we consider vital to such an agreement, such as: roles and responsibilities regarding school discipline, duties of the SRO, duties of school administrators, student rights, payment, and termination.  KSB has created its own template that we believe addresses all required and appropriate topics.

Update Policies as Necessary

The new SRO statutes do not explicitly require the adoption or amendment of any district policies, but they do so implicitly by requiring specific policies be identified in every MOU.  This means that districts seeking to comply with these new requirements must have in place policies which address, at a minimum:

• When a parent or guardian will be notified or present if a student is subjected to questioning or interrogation by a school official or by an SRO or security guard operating in conjunction with a school official.

• Under what circumstances a student will be advised of constitutional rights prior to being questioned or interrogated by a school official or by an SRO or security guard operating in conjunction with a school official.

• The type or category of student conduct or actions that will be referred to law enforcement consistent with the requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 79-262 and 79-293.

• A student and parent complaint process to express a concern or file a complaint about an SRO and the practices of the SRO with the law enforcement agency or security agency.

Schools should review their policies and update them as necessary to make sure they comply with the new requirements.  If you find you don’t have the necessary policies, KSB has drafted a single policy that includes all of these requirements as well as some other topics. 

We hope this information will help you prepare to deal with the KSB spawn! If you have any questions or would like to purchase KSB’s SRO video training, MOU template, or SRO policy, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com or (402) 804-8000.

There Are (Copyright) Rules

If you talk to Steve, you know that there are rules, and they are to be followed.  If you talk to Karen, you know one of those rules is that Christmas music is appropriate ONLY after Thanksgiving and before New Years.  And if you talk to Bobby, you know that there are a lot of boring rules about copyright that we let him drone on about when he gets a bee in his bonnet you ask copyright questions.  So, in light of all of these rules (including the effective DHMs), how in the heck are you supposed to get your holiday concert in between Thanksgiving and New Years?  While your concert may look and sound different, we’re confident that you can still get one in while following all the rules.

Gatherings Rules.  At the time of this blog post, the effective Directed Health Measures restrict gatherings to 25% of an indoor facility’s rated occupancy.  Additionally, parties at a gathering may not exceed eight individuals, and each party must maintain six feet of distance from others.  Depending on the size and occupancy of your facility, this could hamper your ability to accommodate your usual holiday concert crowd.  You may also want to consult with your county attorney and local public health departments to ensure that they do not consider a holiday concert to fall under the more stringent rules related to “extracurricular youth activities,” such as the limitation on attendance to household members of participants.

Copyright Rules.  If you have purchased sheet music, that typically comes with rights to perform the music.  So in a typical scenario, purchasing the sheet music would also come with a license to perform it live.  However, those licenses are typically limited to in-person performances that are not broadcast or recorded for redistribution.  Usually, when you add in the ability to live stream or record and post the performance, you are then in need of additional licenses, such as mechanical, production, broadcast, digital performance, etc.  

Similarly, the only recording typically allowed under a "standard" music purchase is for instructional and feedback purposes.  The same is true under the fair use exceptions in the law, discussed below.  Recording for critique is okay; recording to share with grandpas and grandmas typically is not--at least not without the proper license.

Fortunately, each music purchase you made should have come with an explanatory document or contract that will clarify the licenses you have and what you can do with them.  To avoid any copyright issues, that means you'll have to check each one and, if it is anything but clear that you can record or otherwise broadcast your event with that music, you will have to contact the copyright holder to clarify your rights and possibly purchase additional licenses.  If you can’t get the right licenses, you should forego that song.  I’m sure music educators will be thrilled to change or scrap songs this late in the game. 

Fair Use?  I can hear you now: “But what about fair use?”  Fair use is an exception that gets tossed around a lot by well-intentioned educators, but it is unfortunately much more limited than one would think.  The typical fair use for music is the ability to record a practice or performance for purposes of critique or instruction, not for broadcast or dissemination.  

A Holiday Miracle.  In light of the pandemic, we are aware that many artists and companies are much more accommodating this year when it comes to granting licenses for things like virtual performances.  In fact, several have provided blanket licenses to use, record, and broadcast their works during COVID.  Others are willing to accommodate schools, even if they don’t have a global exception, or are willing to offer licenses for a reasonable fee.  

Fortunately, some of our clients have been willing to share their experiences in attempting to obtain additional licenses from the companies that sold them music, and we hope that this will save some of you a little time and frustration.  If you have any success stories or good details about working with other companies, please pass them along!

• Plank Road Publishing, which is a K-8 Magazine, indicated that all music can be used during the Pandemic for free.  We recommend calling them to confirm your use of their music at 1-800-437-0832.

• C.L. Barnhouse Company in Oskaloosa, Iowa indicated that all music can be used during the Pandemic for free. We recommend calling them to confirm your use of their music at 641-673-4718.

• Warner Brothers said the cost would be $350.00 for broadcast rights, but they said there is also not enough time to give permission for December 2020.

• John Jacoson's Music Express Magazine by Hal Leonard offers additional licenses for $35.00 per song, so long as your copyright notice reflects that the works are owned by the Hal Leonard owned publisher. You can request permission at support@permissions.zendesk.com

• Essential Music offers additional licenses for $20.00 per song.  You can find request forms at essentialmusic.com

• JW Pepper is unable to provide broadcasting rights, which can only be provided by the group that arranges their pieces.

• Pinkzebra Publishing allows you to request permission to use their works at easysonglicensing.com.

• Heritage Music Press, a division of The Lorenz Corporation, may be contacted at 1-800-444-1144. 

Striv.  The folks from Striv are excellent to work with, and they are right on top of issues like this. However, it is important to remember that contracts with Striv generally provide that it is the school, rather than Striv, that is ultimately responsible for copyright compliance.  We don’t blame them for that, because ultimately the responsibility for copyright compliance is with the entity using the copyrighted work--which in this case is the school.

Other Platforms.  If you are not using Striv but instead want to broadcast or post a performance using Facebook Live, YouTube, or another platform, keep in mind that even if you get the correct licenses from the copyright holders, you must still comply with that platform's terms of service/use.  For example, here is Facebook's Copyright Q&A page, and here are their Terms of Service, which make clear Facebook can take down any content they want if they think you could be violating the law or subjecting them to exposure.  So, even if you obtain the proper licenses, YouTube or Facebook may still take down your content unexpectedly.

We hope this information is helpful as you plan your winter concerts and hope that Santa puts you on the vaccination nice list for following all the rules.  If you have any questions, or would like to share your experience in coordinating licenses for upcoming performances, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com or 402-804-8000. 

Zoom, Zoom, Zoom! (Your Next Board Meeting?)

Although the news reports keep assuring us that a COVID vaccine will bring this pandemic to an end by next summer, for now, the infection numbers continue to rise.  Education leaders have legitimately expressed concern over whether it is safe to continue holding public meetings where school board members, administrators, and members of the public all pile into a library or conference room.  Unfortunately, Nebraska’s Open Meetings Act requires school board members to attend meetings in person only (ESUs can hold virtual meetings already).  However, on November 30, 2020 the Nebraska Governor’s office released Executive Order 20-36, which will allow Nebraska public bodies to hold electronic meetings beginning December 1, 2020 and continuing through January 31, 2021.  

Virtual Meetings Permitted  

Executive Order 20-36, which can be found here, provides that school boards “may meet by videoconference or by telephone conferencing or by conferencing by other electronic communication so long as there is made available at such meeting access to members of the public and to members of the media.”  

The order was updated soon after its initial release.  One of the “WHEREAS” clauses made a reference to 10-person limitations on gatherings, which did not accurately reflect the restrictions in the now-effective Directed Health Measures.  The Governor’s office removed that reference, so as long as your meeting is compliant with the current DHMs for your community, you can still meet in person.  As of the date of this post, that’s 25% of the selected meeting room’s rated occupancy, and all attendees must be able to social distance. 

Back to the EO, while it waives the requirement to hold in-person meetings, it is important to remember that all other provisions of Nebraska’s Open Meetings Act still apply, including the advanced publicized notice and agenda requirements.

Guidance from the Attorney General

The Attorney General posted additional guidance about how the Executive Order would be interpreted by his office.  This guidance can be found here, and if it looks familiar, that's because it piggybacks off the prior guidance issued in light of the similar Executive Order issued in March. 

Notably, this guidance states that if a board elects to have an in-person meeting, the meeting must be open to the members of the public and press who wish to attend.  This would apply in any instance where a quorum is physically present in one location to meet, even if other members are participating electronically.  Remember, though, that the Open Meetings Act always permits a board to meet in its usual meeting place, even if that means the board cannot accommodate all members of the public who wish to attend that meeting in the usual meeting place.  We believe that this means a board can meet in its usual meeting place so long as it can accommodate some members of the public under the new DHMs, and may limit attendance at that meeting consistent with the gathering restrictions. 

Additionally, the Attorney General “highly recommends” that notice for virtual meetings indicate that the meeting will be held electronically and clearly state how the meeting may be accessed.  According to the guidance, if no quorum of the board will be physically present together, the meeting’s notice should also indicate that there will be no public in-person attendance.

Individual Board Members Participating Electronically if Quarantined/Isolated

Also keep in mind that a prior Executive Order, 20-34, permits any single board member to attend, vote, and participate electronically if that board member has been ordered to quarantine or isolate pursuant to the current DHMs.  This authority only extends to December 31, whereas the virtual meetings EO discussed above applies through January 31.

Meetings in December in January

In light of the new executive order, boards have several options for how to hold their December and January meetings:

1. Meet in person in your usual meeting place.  However, this must be done within the gathering size limitations and in a space that is large enough to permit social distancing as required by the executive order.  Because the Open Meetings Act clearly permits a board to meet in its usual meeting place regardless of its ability to accommodate the expected audience, we believe that means capacity at the meeting may be capped in light of the Directed Health Measures, and attendance may be limited to a first-come-first-served basis.  If you do not believe your usual meeting place will be sufficient to accommodate your expected audience in light of the Directed Health Measures, you may want to consider broadcasting the meeting so that it may be accessed by more members of your community in a safe manner.

2. Meet in person in a larger space that can accommodate the expected audience.  This also must be done in compliance with the Directed Health Measures.  Keep in mind that if you meet outside of your normal meeting place, you must make reasonable efforts to allow any attendees to see and hear the meeting.  You may need to use microphones, for example.

3. Have a “hybrid” meeting where no quorum of the board is present, but some members attend in-person and others attend electronically.  For example, you could have 3 board members attend in person and 3 board members attend virtually.  To do so, you will need to comply with the requirements of the EOs and follow the AG’s guidance.

4. Have an electronic meeting where no quorum of the board physically meets in one location. To do so, you should follow the AG’s guidance regarding notice.

We hope this information was helpful as you turn your attention to upcoming board meetings.  If you have any questions about Open Meetings Act requirements, DHMs, meeting notices, EOs, or any other issues, feel free to contact any one of us at KSB by using our full team email: ksb@ksbschoollaw.com

Give Thanks…….. That You Do Not Have to Do ANYTHING in Response to that Email From Norby and Welding

Nebraska’s school administrators were decidedly NOT thankful to open their emails before Thanksgiving.  Norby and Welding, the law firm that represents the Nebraska State Education Association, sent an email to every school district and ESU in the state on Wednesday, November 25th.  This communication provides education entities with notice that the NSEA has filed a “Rule 62 Petition” with the Nebraska Department of Education and requested a hearing on the petition.  Remember that several days ago, the NSEA announced in a press conference and social media campaign that it intended to do this, so it shouldn’t be a surprise.

However, here’s the important part: you do NOT need to cancel your plans to gorge yourself on stuffing and pumpkin pie (and probably a Husker loss on Friday).  This communication, and NSEA’s petition, do not require any immediate response from Nebraska’s education entities, and most of you may not respond at all. 

What’s this Rule 62 business again?  Under Rule 62 of the Nebraska Department of Education, any person may petition the State Board of Education as to the applicability of a “statute, rule, regulation or order enforced by the Board.”  You may recall that this is the mechanism that the ESUCC used to ask the State Board to waive various rules and requirements last spring due to schools being closed for in-person instruction.  The NSEA attorneys are seeking to use this same process to ask the State Board of Education to make new rules for schools to follow while the COVID pandemic remains an active public health concern.  

Why did you get this?  Rule 62 requires anyone who files a petition with the State Board to also serve a copy of the petition on “all necessary parties, including all persons, political subdivisions, corporations, or other entities who are known to have or claim any interest, legal right, duty, privilege, or immunity which would be directly affected by issuance of a declaratory order in this matter by the Board.”  This is why your ESU sent you a copy of ESUCC’s Rule 62 Petition last May.  The NSEA’s attorneys were entirely correct and legally required to send all affected education entities a copy of their petition.  And you will be entirely correct to simply ignore it for now, because there is no obligation to respond.

Our Initial Impressions.  The KSB attorneys are still analyzing the petition, but our initial reaction is that we do not believe that the State Board has the legal authority to do the things the NSEA is asking it to do.  This is because the petition does not seek clarification as to the applicability of existing obligations, but instead requests that the State Board essentially implement new requirements.  Making new rules compared to interpreting existing rules generally would require NDE to go through a rulemaking process.  That is not the function of a Rule 62 petition.

We will continue to work with members of the education community to support you during this pandemic, and we may ultimately submit some sort of response to the State Board regarding the NSEA’s petition.  But it is not necessary to have this petition spoil your Thanksgiving.  And for that, we can all be grateful. 

If you have questions, please let us know, but for now, have a great Thanksgiving and holiday weekend!

Fun and Games with the Open Meetings Act

One of the most frustrating aspects of public school governance is keeping up with the details of the Nebraska Open Meetings Act.  Those requirements are changing again.  In this KSBlog post, we want to update you on (1) the latest Executive Order regarding electronic meetings; (2) the new legal requirements for advertising all school board meetings; and (3) how you will need to change your school board minutes to account for both of these new developments.

Calling/Zooming into Board Meetings Generally

You may recall that last spring, the governor of Nebraska issued an executive order that allowed school boards to hold meetings electronically.  That order expired on June 30.  Since then, some boards have encountered board member absences related to the pandemic as their communities faced outbreaks of COVID-19.  

Generally speaking, the Open Meetings Act does not permit school boards to hold meetings by video or telephone conference.  Section 84-1411(6) states:

“A public body may allow a member of the public or any other witness other than a member of the public body to appear before the public body by means of video or telecommunications equipment.”

The Act does not define what it means to “appear” before the board.  In a prior disposition letter, the Attorney General’s office broadly prohibited board members from calling into a meeting, suggesting that a board member may not even be able to listen into a meeting (without participating in votes or discussions) without violating this provision.  See, Aurora Airport Authority, 19-M-112, p. *4-5 (Atty. Gen. May 3, 2019) (disposition letter).  So, for years, we’ve advised clients that board members should not listen in and specifically could not participate in any way remotely.  Based on more recent informal discussions with the AG’s office, we believe they may take the position that a board member could listen into a meeting via video or telephone conference, so long as that board member did not participate in the meeting, discussion, or votes.  File this away as an issue to be examined again in the future, and perhaps a legislative clarification is possible.

Executive Order No. 20-34

Fortunately, on October 30, 2020, Governor Ricketts signed Executive Order No. 20-34, which should make it a little easier to meet through the end of the year. While board members cannot usually participate in votes and discussion over telephone or video conference, Executive Order No. 20-34 authorizes  additional flexibility when physical attendance at the meeting is frustrated by COVID-19.  Effective until December 31, 2020, the Order provides:

Elected officials who have been ordered to quarantine or isolate by the local public health agency due to exposure to COVID-19, in conformance with guidance from the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, may fully participate, vote, and be counted as part of a quorum in meetings when attending by video conference or by telephonic conference or by conferencing by other electronic communication . . . so long as the public body has at least one physical location that provides access to members of the public and to members of the media.

This Executive Order expires December 31, 2020.  Going forward, it is important to remember that this executive order is not nearly as broad as the previous orders permitting a board to meet by video or telephone conference, and only applies to members of the board ordered to quarantine and isolate.

REMINDER: LB 148 and Publishing Notice of Meetings

We’ve talked about this a lot with our policy service subscribers and in various presentations, but here’s your friendly reminder on the changes to Nebraska’s public meeting notice laws.  Effective November 14, 2020, LB 148 requires school boards to give notice of their meetings by publication in a newspaper of general circulation within their jurisdiction and, if available, on that newspaper’s website.  

Although there is no clear legal definition of a “newspaper of general circulation,” we think that so long as the newspaper in question has subscribers within and beyond your school district, and it contains news stories of general interest to readers (in contrast to only industry-specific or school-specific content), that should be adequate to comply with the new law.  We also believe that other newspapers circulating and readily available in your district, such as the newspaper of a neighboring town or county, probably satisfy your obligation to publish notice.  If you aren’t sure whether your preferred newspaper(s) counts, contact your school attorney.

In addition to the added costs this will impose on schools, these new requirements may hinder a board’s ability to meet on short notice or adjust the time and date of a meeting due to exigent circumstances (such as severe weather, or, you know, A FRICKIN’ PANDEMIC!)  As a result, we recommend that boards identify multiple newspapers with different publication schedules, including at least one with a daily circulation in your community if possible, that could satisfy the new publication requirements on shorter notice.  For example, we believe that the Omaha World Herald is a newspaper of general circulation for much of Nebraska.

Additional Requirements for Your Minutes

Finally, both the new Executive Order and LB 148 will require you to make changes to the contents of your minutes.  

First, if a board member attends a meeting via telephone or video conference, the meeting minutes must reflect that the member participated electronically and note when the member voted on an issue via electronic means.     

Second, all of your minutes must now include methods and dates of publication of notice of the meeting.  For those of you who use the Nebraska School Boards Association’s Sparq Data Solutions for your minutes, you can set your minute templates to prompt you to include that information.  Sparq staff have made this helpful video to show boards how to set up that template. 

Conclusion 

We know that you have a LOT on your plate right now.  The new Executive Order should make life a little easier for boards to continue business as usual when board members are subject to quarantine orders.  The Attorney General’s new interpretation of the Act allowing even board members who are not under quarantine to listen in to meetings electronically so long as they do not participate or vote is also helpful.  However, the new publication requirements in LB 148 will make it much more difficult for boards to advertise their meetings.  The Executive Order expires at the end of 2020, but the new publication requirements will remain in effect indefinitely.  

If you have any questions about a board member’s ability to listen into or participate in a meeting via telephone or video conference, or the publication and notice requirements imposed by LB 148, please don’t hesitate to reach out to one of the KSB School Law attorneys at (402) 804-8000 or email us at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com.

You should totally go as “The Prepared Negotiator” for Halloween! It’s negotiations season in Nebraska, with new EHA rates and more….

It’s that time of year!  When KSB’s Husker predictions get horrible reviews, and you are preparing to negotiate for your 21-22 contracts with impending local, state, and national elections, having no clue what Congress or the Unicameral will do before next August (it’s just frightening at this point), in the middle of a global pandemic.  Sounds fun.  In a crazy time with so many variables, the wise advice to “control what you can” seems apropos.  Since you can’t control the weather or whether Scott Frost goes for it on 4th and 1, let’s make sure you’re well prepared to negotiate.

Negotiations Timelines.  Here’s your annual flu shot reminder about the negotiations timelines in Nebraska.  Statute section 48-818.01 lays out most of the procedural requirements for school and ESU negotiations, including the relevant timelines:

September 1: Deadline for the union to request bargaining agent recognition

October 1: Deadline for the board to respond to the request

November 1: “[N]egotiations shall begin.”  We’re not exactly sure what that means, though the safest answer is to assume 1 of the 4 mandatory negotiations meetings must occur by 11/1.

February 8 (2021): If you’re not settled, the parties must submit to mediation or factfinding, or agree in writing to continue bargaining.

EHA Rate and Network Changes, and Negotiations. Remember that negotiations in Nebraska are all about comparability.  You’re comparing total compensation, not just salary, which includes benefits costs with the bulk coming from health insurance.  Your total compensation number must fall within 98-102% of the total compensation of the midpoint of your array, so your choices and the choices of your array schools matter a lot.  That’s why when Educators Health Alliance (EHA) announced their 2021-2022 rates and an upcoming change to their health insurance network offerings, your ears should have perked up.  

The press release announces 2.96% overall increase in EHA plan premiums for next year. That’s good news.  But keep in mind a raise across the board means every school and ESU in EHA will have a similar increase--it won’t mean you just pay that much less in salary because your benefit costs went up.  That’s why perhaps the bigger news from a negotiations perspective is the addition of two alternative networks.  EHA will continue to offer the statewide NEtwork BLUE option to all school districts and their employees.  For next year (beginning September 1, 2021) EHA will make two alternate networks available to select school districts and their employees.  

One new network is Premier Select BlueChoice.  This network will be available in areas with zip codes starting with 680, 681, 683, 684, or 685.  Some key network hospitals and healthcare providers include Methodist Hospital System, Nebraska Medicine, Bryan Health, Boys Town National Research Hospital, and Children’s Hospital & Medical Center.  

The other new network is Blueprint Health.  This network will be available in areas with zip codes starting with 680, 681, 683, 684, or 685 and the counties of Adams, Buffalo, Hall, Kearney, or Phelps.  Some key network hospitals and healthcare providers include CHI Health System, Alegent Creighton Health Services, Nebraska Spine Hospital LLC, Boys Town National Research Hospital, and Children’s Hospital & Medical Center

Telehealth will be available with all networks.  Employees will be offered two plan options and up to three network choices.  The alternate networks have fewer hospitals and doctors than the statewide networks and will only be available to specific geographic areas, but they keep costs lower for districts and employees through lower premiums, deductibles, out-of-pocket costs.**  You can see the new plan documents and the coverage/rate information on EHA’s website, ehaplan.org.  

**Note: This is where we suspect some board negotiating teams may see an attractive cost savings, but where we must remind you that saving on health care premiums likely means more money put in other places, such as salary, to have a “total compensation” number within the acceptable 98-102% range under our negotiations rules.

Plan Ahead and Be Prepared.  Every board should have an accurate snapshot of your negotiating position and an understanding of how changes in inputs (whether by choice or by circumstance) affect your position and strategy.  “But KSB, we have to negotiate by November 1, so there’s no more time to prepare!”  False!  There is no requirement to settle and put everything on the table in meeting #1.  (But, we do recommend putting ALL subjects at issue on the table as early as possible.)  

It’s not too late to get a reliable comp study done, to have your negotiated agreement reviewed for provisions that must or should change, or talk strategy with your school or ESU attorney.  Consider giving your school attorney a call just to talk through your options and strategy for a few minutes.  If you’re a KSB client, give any of us a call or drop us a line (ksb@ksbschoollaw.com).  Happy negotiating! 

Long Awaited KSB Husker Predictions!

KAREN’S PREDICTION:

So much has changed in our daily lives since the pandemic hit this past spring that I have been looking forward to the familiar ritual of predicting the Huskers’  wins for the 2020 season.  Then I took a hard look at the schedule that our good friends at the B1G have put together for us and I was so depressed I considered reviewing COVID mortality rates to lighten the mood…...

Ohio State - loss.  (Granted, the Horseshoe will not be filled with 102,780 drunk Buckeyes, but really how many fans does Ohio State’s offensive line need cheering them on against the Huskers’ shaky defense?)

Wisconsin - loss. (Bucky’s cheese eaters on the offensive and defensive lines have not gotten smaller.) 

Northwestern - win. (Husker fans will have trouble social distancing when they are high-fiving each other on November 4.)  

Penn State - loss. (After a celebratory week where talk radio will be filled with “we are back, baby” calls, Penn State will bring it all to a screeching halt.)

Illinois - loss. (Lovey Smith’s beard will distract the Huskers, and a much-improved Fighting Illini team will take advantage of the physical beating the Huskers will have taken at the hands of Penn State.) 

Iowa - loss. (Puke emoji.  Cursing emoji. Weary face emoji.)

Purdue - loss. (They’ve beaten us the last two times, and the Huskers will be dealing with the crippling shame that attends a loss to the *barf* Hawkeyes.)

Minnesota - loss. (Look, I don’t like it any more than you do, but the Gophers have their entire starting offensive line back and that will not be good for us.)

So there you have it.  A crushing 1-7 season, will have Husker fans longing for the sweeter, more joyous days of March and April of 2020.  And we all will watch every excruciating snap, fumble and incompletion.  BECAUSE HUSKER FOOTBALL IS FUN DAMN IT. 

Overall prediction: 1- 7 :-( 

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled existential despair…... 

STEVE’S PREDICTION: 

Eight Nebraska football players sued the Big Ten over its decision to postpone the season.  Really?!?  I’ve never seen a group of people so anxious for an ass-whooping that they would file a lawsuit asking for it!  Alright, I guess we’re really going to do this.  

First, the good news.  It is impossible for the Cornhuskers to get curb-stomped by the Michigan Wolverines because they don’t play this year.  The bad news?  Your Nebraska Cornhuskers still have to play Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Penn State.  These games will be reminiscent of the PTSD-inducing, Plastic Spoon Beatdowns™ that my mom put on me in the early 80s for, as far as I can recall, being a perfect child.  Iowa and Minnesota?  Nebraska won’t be up to the task, and we’ll have to put up with Tyler bragging about his Hawkeyes beating a has-been program.  Nebraska will manage to eke out two wins against Northwestern, Purdue, and Illinois, but that should leave you with the same feeling I have when I take money from everyone at KSB playing poker.  Sure, it’s a win, but how good can you feel about getting over on the less fortunate?    

The Huskers will end the regular-season Big Ten schedule with a 2-6 record.  I’ll call the +1 game a toss-up that the Huskers will manage to lose.  The Huskers will not be one of the 78 teams that earns a bowl bid.  The Huskers finish the season 2-7, resulting in the Big Ten filing a lawsuit of their own against the University of Nebraska for breach of contract for failing to play football in good faith.  

BOBBY’S PREDICTION:

My goodness! Would you look at all this doom and gloom!  Karen remains in existential despair; Steve and Jordan don’t count--they’re like the annoying uncle and cousin who just happened to like the Cowboys, Braves, and Bulls in the 90s; Tyler went to Iowa, so he’s immediately disqualified as biased; and it’s clear Matt’s affinity for Notre Dame of the ACC fame (they joined a conference!) has tainted Shari to an unacceptable degree.  That leaves Coady, and he’s also at 3-5.  Woof.

I’m going with 4-4, and I’m the optimist!?  Of course, that’s a very sad state of affairs when I (and Vegas) am teetering on a line of  o/u 3.5 wins for 8 games.  I’d put my money on the unders (3-5) but my heart wants 4-4, so that’s what you’re gonna get from me in a year that needs more cowbell.

I see some of my derelict colleagues predicting 2-3 wins over what should be 10 total games (8 regular season, 1 conference tournament game, and 1 bowl game).  If that happens, maybe we should be predicting wins from a new coach next year (yeah, I said it).  As far as the 8 games we have, Nebraska only looks to be a pre-season, 2-score dog in 2 of them (Ohio State and Penn State).  I get that point spreads are to induce betting and are not intended to be predictive, but Vegas has been pretty good in the prediction market over the last, I dunno, century.  So 6 of our 8 games are informally predicted to be within 1 score.  Can Vegas be so wrong so many years in a row on Nebraska?  I’m hoping for a mere regression to the mean so that we barely cover the o/u 3.5 win total at 4.  It’s not like I’m asking for us to go better than .500, geez.  

I’m going with wins against Illinois, Purdue, and Northwestern.  Then, I think we get one of Wisconsin, Iowa, or Minnesota, the latter two of which should have opening lines within a field goal or 2.  Nebraska hasn’t beaten a top-10 team since 2015 and even that year Michigan State lost its bowl game and finished outside of the top 10 in the final Sagarin.  There’s a statistical “we’re due” argument to be made, but I’m not making it.  Sadly, I’ll be elated if we cover 4 TD and 2 TD spreads against Ohio State and Penn State.

So, 4-4 with some bruising losses mixed in.  At that record, we’ll get a decent draw as the 3rd-5th ranked team in the west division for the bonus game on conference championship weekend.  Maybe a gettable Michigan State or Maryland.  I also think Nebraska’s following may lead to us being outmatched in any bowl game we’re invited to, but sadly “outmatched” isn’t that tough.  Maybe those extra bowl practices with a young team and the free year of eligibility from the NCAA will mean we get talented guys up to speed for a bowl appearance and steal one.  Assuming all games are played:

Regular Season: 4-4

Conference Bonus Game and Bowl: 1-1

Overall: 5-5 

(COVID-19: 1-0)

If we only win 2 or 3 out of 10, I may have to ask Karen to buy me a ticket on the express train toward deflated expectations for our once-proud program.  Even if we go 4-4, that’ll mark the 17th year in a row Nebraska has lost at least 4 games.  And that’s the optimistic view of the group...

SHARI’S PREDICTION:

The only thing that is a for sure win in 2020 is COVID.  I think we would all agree that 2020 has been a crappy year and I’m pretty sure that will be what takes all the blame for the Nebraska losses this year.  Unfortunately, there will be a lot.  Which is where all the excuses come in.  Season was cancelled, season was back on, we got the worst schedule, we couldn’t properly prepare and on and on and on.  I think Nebraska will get two wins this season.  Illinois and Purdue.  The only plus of a 2 win season this year is that they still get to go to a bowl game.  I will give Nebraska a win in that game to finish on a high note. 

COADY’S PREDICTION:

It doesn’t take Bill Moos whining about the B1G’s scheduling decisions to know that this slate presents a challenge for Nebraska.  It’ll be an upset if Nebraska beats any of Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State, or Iowa.

[Author’s Note: It pains me to include the Hawkeyes in that list--especially since our own Tyler Coverdale attended law school in Iowa City, and I am not enthusiastic about hearing from Tyler how well the Hawkeyes are doing.  But, I only have to think back to the last few Thanksgiving weekends to conclude that until Nebraska shows that its defensive front seven is more stout, then Iowa will continue to matriculate the ball down the “Blackshirts”  throat four yards at a time.  So, Iowa joins the other B1G heavyweights as probable losses.]

I see probable wins against Illinois and Purdue.  That’s it.  That’s the list.

I mark down Northwestern and Minnesota as toss-up games.  Partly because the COVID-19 pandemic will preclude Ryan Field in Evanston from feeling like Memorial Stadium North, taken over by the Sea of Red (which typically happens), and also because I refuse to live in a world where Minnesota and its gimmicky coach are assumed losses for Nebraska.  Assume that Nebraska splits these games and finishes the pre-scheduled slate at 3-5.

The good news: That is three more wins that it looked like Nebraska would get on August 12 after the B1G cancelled the football season.  The bad news: Re-starting the football season back up is likely to lead to at least five more losses, too.

Man, I truly hope that I am wrong and that Nebraska football brings us all some unexpected joy this fall.  I suspect that I am not.

TYLER’S PREDICTION: 

Did you know if you google “What’s wrong with the Nebraska Cornhuskers?” you get 10,900,000 hits? That’s a lot of problems for a once proud program who produced upstanding citizens like Ndamukong Suh and Richie Incognito.  Ah yes, the glorious history of the late ‘90s of which I’m reminded every time I bring up the dear Cornhuskers recent record against it’s now superior rival to the east. I suppose being a Huskers fan is similar to being a Cowboys fan—reliving the glory days of thirty years ago while consistently losing to teams from Wisconsin (GO PACK GO!).

But on to this year.  It’s going to be a rough go. Nebraska was leading the charge to get football back, and maybe the Big Ten was mad at them for it so it gave them this schedule.  Starting off against the buzzsaws that are Ohio State and Wisconsin, the Huskers are in for a bad time.  They may steal a win in Evanston against Northwestern but I wouldn’t bet my life on it.  They’ll likely get a W at home against the Illini, but then reality will set back in as they make the journey to Iowa City for their annual loss to the Hawkeyes.  Maybe someday KSB will actually see a Husker victory over Iowa (last happened in 2014), but I doubt it’ll happen this year at Kinnick against that offensive line.

Husker fans will flirt with hope again with a victory over Purdue, but the year will end with a disheartening loss to the Golden Gophers at home.

2-6. 

MATT’S PREDICTION:

LET’S GO S’KERS! Time to forget about Covid for a couple hours and watch some football.  Damn it -- Ohio St. scored already, well better make a drink. Dang they scored again! Better make it a shot and a beer this time!  Husker fans look on the bright side, the following week they play Wisconsin and won’t lose by 40! Instead they will get pounding from their rushing attack and lose by just 30. Man, I could talk smack all day, but I'll stop.  The s’kers will get a few wins.  I’m predicting wins from Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue and that’s where the wins stop!  3-5 (only 5 losses, not bad)!  

JORDAN’S PREDICTION:

Misery loves company, and this lifelong Lions fan in Nebraska is slated to have a lot of company for football season.  A word of advice – look at this season as a comedy, not a drama, and remember, no one likes the sad clown.  Don’t cry! Laugh with the Ohio State fans (who have become the only ones that appreciate Nebraska’s presence in the Big Ten) as they take a thirty point lead into half time.  Smile as you (totally legally) bet the over on how many field goals can be missed against the Badgers.  Giggle with glee at the first win against Illinois.  And, of course, breathe a sigh of relief that there are no fans in stadiums, which means you won’t need to navigate Iowa’s road construction (or smell the air over there.)  In short, enjoy the journey, because the destination is bleak.  2-6 with losses in the TBA game and any “bowl” game to follow. 

(Un)Precedented Times: FAQs after a Month of Reopening

We’re now a month into the school year, which begs the question: Are we now living in precedented times?  Unfortunately, for schools in Nebraska, precedent goes out the window every time the Directed Health Measures (DHMs) are changed.  Similarly for schools in South Dakota, a lack of consistency in guidance at the state level combined with increasing COVID cases leaves schools uncertain about how to serve students without facing liability.  All of these changes beg several follow-up questions, so we wanted to take this opportunity to answer some of those most frequently asked by schools adapting their plans to their community’s changing circumstances. 

What’s changed with the public health guidance and requirements?  

Over the last several weeks, schools in some Nebraska health department regions were advised that if students were wearing masks at the time of an exposure or close contact with an individual who tests positive for COVID-19, they would not necessarily be required to isolate or quarantine as close contacts.  Unfortunately, this advice was not consistent with the authoritative DHM’s in effect, and couldn’t be relied upon by schools. . . until the DHMs were updated again this week.

The updated and effective DHM’s, which can be found here, include new provisions about when a student must isolate or quarantine because of classroom contact with a student that tested positive.  Specifically, the updated provisions indicate that:

• In a classroom where everyone is masked, including the student to test positive, only the student who tests positive will isolate at home, and the remainder of the students will self-monitor for symptoms. 

• In a classroom where the student that tests positive is not masked, that student will be isolated at home, and any peers who had close contact with the student will quarantine at home, regardless of whether those peers were wearing masks during the close contact period.  

• In a classroom where the student that tests positive is masked, but others are not, the student who tests positive will isolate at home, and the students without masks that were in close contact will quarantine at home.  The other students in the classroom that were masked will only be required to self-monitor for symptoms.

• In a classroom where no students were masked, the student that tests positive will be isolated at home, and any close contacts will quarantine at home.

For South Dakota schools, there are no directed health measures to follow. Instead, much like the Pirate Code, the South Dakota Department of Health has mostly insisted their recommendations are simply “guidelines” which schools can take or leave.  Anecdotally, though, many districts are reconsidering masking requirements in light of increases in outbreaks and the relative success some districts have had in implementing the measures.

We are now going to require that all students and staff members wear masks.  How do we handle requests for exceptions to mask requirements?

If you have been a “strongly encouraged” school that is shifting to mandatory masking, it might be helpful to refer back to our previous post on the subject, found here.  This post discusses how to handle requests for exceptions to mask requirements when a student cites an underlying medical condition as the reason for needing an accommodation.  These requests implicate Section 504 and, potentially, the IDEA.

For students who cite political or “religious” reasons for their request, you are not required to grant an accommodation under the First Amendment.  This is because a masking requirement is neutral and unrelated to discrimination on the basis of First Amendment activity.  This probably can be explained best by analogy: You would not allow someone to attend school without clothes, even if they intended their nudity to be a political statement or a religious act.  Similarly, you would not allow a student in welding class to weld without protective eye coverings, even if the student was attempting to make a political statement about over-regulation by OSHA or did not believe in the risks associated with welding without PPE.  

We’re a little rusty on Section 504, can you give us some help?

Of course.  These days, it seems like there is a regulation or an obligation for everything, and it’s tough to tackle these complex issues without support.  Fortunately, KSB has a detailed memo, forms, and COVID-19 samples prepared to make your 504 process more efficient and accessible.  These also come along with a link to a short Section 504 refresher course led by Karen, which will get you up to speed with your obligations in about 30 minutes.  Just let us know if you would like to purchase these resources -- we are charging $150 for the package. 

Our area is doing well to minimize the spread of COVID-19, so can we discontinue our remote learning program or hybrid system?

Yes. . .  And no. . .  Neither Nebraska nor South Dakota ever required schools to create a hybrid system allowing remote learning for all students.  However, there are circumstances where the IDEA or Section 504 may require you to allow a student to engage in remote instruction in order to equally access your educational program.  To that end, students with disabilities currently receiving instruction remotely might have IEPs or Section 504 plans that call for the provision of remote services, accommodations, or instruction. 

This means that while you can discontinue remote learning programs or services for general education students, there will be additional considerations for students with disabilities.  For those students whose IEP Team or 504 Committee included remote services or programming into the student’s individualized plan, the team will need to reconvene and consider the student’s unique needs and circumstances prior to making any changes.  Additionally, requests for accommodations or services on the basis of disability must continue to be handled by the appropriate team.

What do we do if a student with a disability who is supposed to receive remote services or instruction isn’t logging on to access their education?  And what about the kids who are logging on, but aren’t making progress?

We are approaching the end of the first quarter of the 20-21 school year, which means most families will be receiving progress reports very soon.  We should review the current access and progress data for your students with disabilities receiving remote services or instruction over the last month now, before those reports are prepared and sent.  If the data indicates that a student isn’t accessing their programming, or isn’t progressing despite accessing their programming, the student’s placement may not be appropriate.  In these situations, we recommend that you reconvene the student’s IEP Team or Section 504 Committee to consider this new information, and discuss what changes are necessary for the student to make progress appropriate in light of their unique circumstances.   It may be that the student and/or parents simply need technical support or training in accessing remote programming.  On the other hand, the team may determine that remote programming is not appropriate for the student, and return the student to in-person instruction with adequate precautions.  It is important that each student team reach independent determinations about the student’s unique needs and circumstances, regardless of the policies or programs that are applicable to the general education program.

What do we do if a student with a disability wants to return to school in person, but we aren’t permitting families to change until the end of the semester?

As noted above, schools are obligated to provide students with disabilities FAPE, irrespective of the rules set for the general education program.  If a student with a disability requests a return to school in person, they’re asking for a change in placement unless their services and instruction would be the same in an in-person environment.  In response, you should review the student’s progress data and determine if an IEP meeting should be held to consider changing the student’s placement.  If the data indicates that the student’s current plan or placement is inappropriate, the team should meet to consider whether changes are warranted.  However, this does not mean that the team is obligated to return the student to in-person instruction if the team concludes that in-person instruction is not the student’s appropriate placement.

What are the PWN/documentation issues with all this?

Prior Written Notice is required under the IDEA (but not Section 504) whenever a school proposes or refuses to initiate or change the placement or provision of FAPE to a student.  That means you should respond with PWN if you receive a request to change a student’s programming or services (such as a request to return to in-person instruction) or a change to the services and accommodations necessary to provide the student FAPE (such as a request for an accommodation to masking requirements).  Remember that you cannot unilaterally change a student’s placement or amend their IEP with PWN alone; you must either reach these decisions as a team or agree with the parent in writing to an amendment.

How many games are the Huskers going to win with this brutal schedule?

Just kidding. . .  You’ll have to wait just a little longer before you can read our predictions and call your bookie.  In the meantime, if you have any questions about these unprecedented times, or need a place to vent about the Huskers’ schedule, call Karen, Steve*, Bobby, Coady, Jordan*, or Tyler* at (402) 804-8000 or shoot us an email at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com. 

*Steve, Jordan, and Tyler are not Husker football fans and make no promises or assurances that any complaints from Husker fans will be met with empathy, understanding, or support.  By calling Steve, Jordan, or Tyler to discuss the Huskers, you do thereby assume the risk of any hurt feelings, and waive any claims or complaints in relation thereto.  Further, by calling Steve, Jordan, or Tyler to discuss the Huskers, you do thereby consent to receive future communications regarding the success of the Michigan and Iowa football programs.

The Gambler: A Title IX Update NOT about the New Regulations

You never walk away from the table on a heater.  Just ask Gavin Grimm.  He filed a lawsuit 6 years ago when his school board passed a policy prohibiting him from using the bathroom consistent with his gender identity.  His case has yo-yo’d through the federal court system since.   Grimm won (again) yesterday in a major way, this time in a decision issued by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The court agreed that the Gloucester County School Board violated Grimm’s rights under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause by denying him access to the boys’ bathroom and failing to amend his educational records.

If this feels like deja vu, that's because we’ve been following Grimm’s case for almost six years now.  In fact, one of our very first KSBlog posts from 2015 discusses the early loss Grimm was handed, before he began his winning streak (discussed in this post from 2016) and almost got his day in the Supreme Court (discussed in this post from 2017).  After years of litigation, the Fourth Circuit cut right to the chase:

“At the heart of this appeal is whether equal protection and Title IX can protect transgender students from school bathroom policies that prohibit them from affirming their gender. We join a growing consensus of courts in holding that the answer is resoundingly yes.”

You can expect to hear from students, parents, and advocacy groups that the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Grimm (one of several dozen in which the transgender student has won) once again makes clear that schools are obligated to permit students to use sex-segregated facilities consistent with their gender identity.  While that position may very well be the law of the land sometime soon, the Eighth Circuit (covering NE and SD) hasn’t decided this issue definitively...yet.  We believe you should continue to handle requests for accommodations from transgender individuals on a case-by-case basis under your standard sex discrimination policies.  (Keep in mind, though, that the grievance procedures required by the new Title IX regulations likely would not apply to a student’s request for such accommodations, because those procedures only apply to “formal complaints” of “sexual harassment” as defined by the regs.) 

To Be Continued?

If this sounds familiar for other reasons, you’re probably recalling the recent Supreme Court decision in Bostock, where 3 employees (2 gay, 1 transgender) sued their employers for discrimination under Title VII.  The Supreme Court determined that employers cannot discriminate against any employee on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.   The day that case was decided, any lawyer following transgender rights litigation predicted that courts and advocacy groups would cite that decision when arguing Title IX cases involving students and schools.  The Fourth Circuit in Grimm’s case did just that.  The key question now is whether the Supreme Court will take this opportunity to provide the same clarity under Title IX as it did under Title VII, finally giving public schools across the country the clarity they’ve been seeking for years.  

If we’re really lucky, that decision would also provide clarity in the area of transgender students’ participation in athletics.  After an OCR decision prohibited transgender female athletes from participating in girls’ sports,   a U.S. District Court in Idaho promptly reached the exact opposite conclusion, striking down Idaho’s law that prohibited transgender females from participating in girls’ sports in Hecox v. Little.  

In the meantime, schools in Nebraska and South Dakota should handle these situations on a case-by-case basis and avoid changes to your policies related to transgender students.  If you have any questions about the rights of transgender students, other recent developments under Title IX, or any other issue, don’t hesitate to call Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, Jordan, or Tyler.

Who is that Masked Man? And If He Has a Doctor’s Note Can He Take That Thing Off?

Masking has become a polarizing “hot button” issue as schools in Nebraska and South Dakota reopen this fall.  Many boards of education have started the school year with, or are considering moving to, requiring all students to wear masks or other face coverings while at school.  Some families have responded to universal masking rules by providing a doctor’s note or other document seeking to show that a particular student has a medical condition preventing him/her from wearing a mask.  Some students who have not previously raised health concerns may now reveal a medical condition that they believe should excuse them from masking requirements.  Unfortunately, some of these are legitimate medical needs and others are attempts to bypass masking requirements for political or other reasons.  How does an educator with a million other things going on sift through it?! 

As a result, we are getting this question from clients repeatedly: if a student has a doctor’s note, is he/she entitled not to wear a mask?  As with most legal issues involving students with disabilities, the legal answer is not a simple “yes” or “no.”  Instead, these requests should trigger your process for identifying and accommodating students under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.  Although it may seem like additional work, the benefit of the process around the request makes it easier to handle them consistently and to receive the deference schools are entitled to when following the proper process.    

Both Section 504 and the IDEA require schools to find and evaluate students who are believed to have disabilities. When a parent tells you that their child has a medical excuse not to wear a  mask, the parent is also giving you notice that the student suffers from a physical or mental impairment, which triggers your obligation to conduct a 504 evaluation.  

If the school is notified that a student has a medical condition significant enough to support waiver of a universal masking rule, schools must take the following steps:

1. promptly seek parental consent to evaluate under Section 504; 

2. hold a Section 504 Committee meeting to determine if the student is “disabled” as that term is defined by Section 504; and, if so, 

3. create a Section 504 plan for students who qualify as “disabled” under Section 504, if the child’s disability requires a reasonable accommodation to access the school’s programs and activities.  

Students who already have a Section 504 Plan or an IEP should have any needed accommodations to mask rules addressed in those existing plans after the committee or IEP team holds a meeting to discuss the new accommodation requests.

The good news in all this is that the 504 evaluation process is much less formal than the IDEA process.  The bad news is that this means your 504 committees bear a lot of responsibility for making this decision on their own.  The worse news is that you cannot simply create a “health care plan” and call it good; the Office for Civil Rights has repeatedly found that students with health care plans should be given the opportunity to instead have a plan under Section 504, because they are entitled to the procedural safeguards of Section 504 if they have a qualifying disability.  

If your district has a robust Section 504 process, you should be able to use that same system for students seeking waiver of universal masking rules or other disability-related accommodations due to the pandemic.  If you are uncertain about how that would look, or if you are a little rusty on the whole Section 504 bit, KSB does have a detailed memo, forms and COVID-19 samples available.  Just let us know if you need help.  For districts that purchase the 504 forms, we will also share a link to a short Section 504 refresher course, which is about 30 minutes long.

KSB Webinar Series 2020-2021

Save the Dates! KSB will again be hosting a webinar series for the 2020-2021 school year. The dates and topics are as follows:

Negotiations:  September 15, 2020 -- Know When To Hold Em’, Know When to Fold Em’: Don’t Gamble on your Negotiation Preparation

You don’t have to be Kenny Rogers to know that you never count your money when you’re sitting at the table.  Instead, it's important that you go to the negotiating table fully informed, with a sound strategy driven by concrete goals and reliable data.  This presentation will highlight how comparability studies, strategy sessions, and familiarity with the state of labor law and labor negotiations in Nebraska can help your District go to the table with an ace in the hole.  The presentation will be recorded, so if you sign up you can share it with your board members and/or negotiations committee if they can’t attend live, as well.

Personnel:  December 1, 2020 -- Based on a True Story...

We get it; you didn’t go into education to crush peoples’ dreams.  School administrators are quick to identify areas of strength, and reluctant to be too harsh in giving feedback.  Unfortunately, when it comes to personnel matters, this can leave you unable to share the full story when it comes time to make staffing decisions.  This session will review personnel documentation and advise on best practices for communicating with staff about their job performance.  Whether you want to move a staff member from “good to great’ or from “bad to gone,” the strategies and examples in this session will help you be a more effective administrator.  YOU are the author of this story, and it's never too late for a plot-twist.  This presentation will help you write evaluations and improvement plans like Tolkien, discuss leave like Hemingway, and navigate personnel nightmares like Poe.

Special Education:  February 9, 2021 -- Times, They Are a-Changin’  

Since the Supreme Court issued its opinions in Fry and Endrew F. in 2017, the law and landscape of special education law has changed dramatically.  Since that time, special education litigation has only continued to increase, and courts have been grappling with these new standards and applying them to novel fact patterns and difficult questions of law.  As always, we’ve seen trends that started on the coasts work their way to the heartland, with an increase in requests for independent educational evaluations and specialized placements.  Oh, and then there was that whole global pandemic thing, which acted as a stress test on an already strained, under-funded system and put a spotlight on areas of technical compliance.  Unfortunately, the hits are likely to keep coming, and it's important for all school administrators as well as those specifically working in special education to be prepared for these continuing challenges. This presentation will take the lessons we’ve learned over the past few years and apply them to the issues you should expect to see going forward. 

Students:  March 30, 2021 -- Kids These Days

With the Class of 2033 in their seats (or screens) for the first year of the rest of their lives, even Jordan, at the ripe old age of 26, feels old.  We’ve been doing this a long time (just ask Karen!) but the youth of America still find ways to surprise and challenge us.  And don’t get us started about “snowplow” parents.  From new and interesting ways to violate the code of conduct to novel requests for accommodations, it's tough to stay on top of it all.  This presentation will highlight the most pressing issues in fulfilling the needs of Generation Zoom, while discussing practical solutions and strategies to get you ready for the Class of 2034.

FOR MORE INFORMATION AND TO REGISTER, CLICK HERE!

REMINDER: Q&A with KSB, Special Education Edition!

Q&A with KSB, Special Education Edition!

When: Friday, August 14, 2020 at 10:00 AM CDT

Where: ZOOM (Info below)

What: Q&A with KSB, Special Education Edition

On Friday, we’re going to answer your COVID-related questions on Special Education.  We plan to cover:

• Why you shouldn’t be saying “comp ed” in your meetings;

• When you should be holding meetings and how to prioritize your scheduling;

• The data you should be collecting when students return to school; 

• How to handle requests for COVID-19 related accommodations from students with disabilities;

• How to discuss the effects of COVID-19 on your students in an IEP meeting, and prepare services to address these needs;

• What obligations you owe to students who have disenrolled to homeschool;

• How to put a framework around your IDEA and 504 obligations when the district has a parent choice/hybrid model; and

• Any other questions you might have!

JOIN THE ZOOM HERE!

Frequently Asked Questions about Serving Disabled Students During COVID-19

Educators have worked frantically all summer to prepare for the reopening of schools.  A lot of the focus has been on whether to require students to wear masks, the effect of COVID risk dials, and how to safely serve students in extended school year services and extracurricular activities.  As we enter the fall with reopening and contingency plans in place, many special education professionals must now decide how their district’s plans will be applied to special education students.  We have prepared this list of frequently asked questions that we have been fielding as special educators prepare for students with disabilities to return to school in a few days. 

Does every student with a doctor’s note get to stay home or be excused from wearing a mask or have whatever accommodations the doctor recommends?

Not necessarily.  Students with disabilities are entitled to be evaluated for eligibility under either Section 504 or the IDEA.  Once the relevant educational team has determined that the student qualifies for services under the relevant statute, it is up to the team/committee to determine the services or accommodations the student will receive.  

If a parent provides the school district with a doctor’s note, the first thing to do is to determine whether the student has an existing IEP or 504 plan.  If so, the school must promptly convene the relevant team to review the doctor’s note and the team should make an independent determination about appropriate accommodations for the student.  

If the student does not have a pre-existing IEP or 504 plan, the school should promptly seek consent from the family to begin the evaluation process. 

Can we just do a health care plan instead of a 504?

No.  The Office for Civil Rights has made it clear that schools may not side-step the obligations of Section 504 or the IDEA by providing the student with a health care plan.  Instead, OCR views the existence of a health care plan as evidence that the school knew the student had a physical or mental impairment and that knowledge triggers the district’s child find obligation.  In other words, by giving the student a health care plan, the district is conceding that it should have evaluated the student under 504 and/or the IDEA. 

We are allowing families to choose in-person or remote learning.  Can we say that students with disabilities must come to school in person since these students are more in need of in-person instruction? 

No.  School districts that are allowing the parents of typically-developing students to select between in-person instruction and remote learning cannot deprive parents of students with disabilities of that same choice.  

Once parents have made their decision, then each student’s IEP or 504 team needs to meet to craft a plan for the student in light of the parents’ choice.  This means that the team must make an individualized determination about the services, supports and specialized instruction that each student requires in order to receive a free and appropriate public education.  In some cases, the team may decide that it must override the parents’ decision to opt for remote learning and require the student to come to school to receive services.  In order to make this decision, educators will use the same criteria that you use in all decisions about placement of a student in the least restrictive environment and should thoroughly document the team’s consideration of the parent’s input.  

If you haven’t, take a few minutes to review this excellent technical assistance guidance from the Nebraska Department of Education on Least Restrictive Environment.    That document provides: 

Considering the Meaning of “Regular Educational Environment”

The use of the term “regular educational environment” is longstanding in IDEA’s regulations. In response to a public comment on the scope of the LRE provision, the Department explained that the term “encompasses regular classrooms and other settings in schools such as lunchrooms and playgrounds in which children without disabilities participate” (71 Fed. Reg. 46585). The settings in a school where children without disabilities participate are many and varied; all are considered part of the “regular educational environment.”

When schools have given parents the ability to select between in-person instruction and remote learning, the student’s “regular educational environment” will be the option chosen by the parents.  The student’s IEP team can change the “regular education environment” only after they have followed the legally-required process for making a LRE determination. 

In a very useful 2020 Individual Education Program technical assistance guide, the South Dakota Department of Education has similar guidelines for teams to use in making least restrictive placement determinations, beginning on page 33. The South Dakota Department of Education has also included guidance on making least restrictive environment determinations as part of its guidance on re-opening schools this fall, beginning on page 15.  In general, if the student is participating the remote learning in the same manner as students without disabilities, the time will count as time inside the regular classroom. 

Wait, are you saying we have to hold an IEP meeting for every student with an IEP before school starts?

In a perfect world, yes.  Last spring, when public schools began closing across the nation, the Office for Civil Rights released a “Fact Sheet” providing guidance to schools on how to serve students with disabilities during this pandemic.  That document provided: 

If a student does not receive services after an extended period of time, the student’s IEP team or 504 team must make an individualized determination whether or not, and to what extent, compensatory services are needed including how to make up for any skills that may have been lost.

In a supplemental fact sheet, OCR followed up by stating: 

Where there has been an inevitable delay in providing services, or even deciding how to provide services, due to school closures, the student’s IEP team must make an individualized determination whether and to what extent compensatory services are needed when schools resume normal operations.

We are urging our clients to call the services students will receive after the COVID closures “COVID Impact Services” instead of “compensatory education services.”  However, regardless of the label affixed to them, it is clear that the US Department of Education expects schools to meet as quickly as possible to determine the extent of any additional services the student might need as a result of the COVID closures. 

Similarly, on March 25, 2020, the South Dakota Department of Education issued a joint statement with the South Dakota Parent Connection and Disability Rights South Dakota that included this directive: 

At the conclusion of this outbreak, IEP teams can assess if services provided allowed the student to make sufficient progress on goals and educational standards, and then determine if any additional or compensatory services should be made available due to any limitations in the provision of a Free Appropriate Public Education.

Can we just send PWN instead? 

There is a dangerous misunderstanding floating around some special education circles that school districts can just issue a prior written notice to parents to side-step the necessity of holding many IEP meetings in a short period of time.  This is simply not the case.  There are only two ways that a student’s IEP can be amended: 

1. Through a meeting of the IEP team at which the school district arranges to receive meaningful parental participation in the team meeting; or

2. Through a written agreement with the parents PRIOR to the amendment of the IEP that the plan may be amended in specific ways without the necessity of a full meeting. 

AFTER one of these two processes has been followed, THEN the parents must receive prior written notice of any changes to the IEP before the changes to the plan are implemented. 

Parents in other states are already successful in filing complaints against districts that unilaterally changed students’ IEPs during the COVID closures without meeting with parents.  For example, the Kansas Department of Education just determined that a district violated the IDEA only by failing by failing to include the parent in the development of the student's Individualized Continuous Learning Plan when the school closed due to the pandemic.  See In re Student with a Disability, 120 LRP 22907 (SEA KS 2020).

What if we just don’t have the time or resources to hold all these IEP meetings? 

We recommend that you triage your caseload by prioritizing the students who are most likely to require COVID impact services in order to receive FAPE.  You could schedule IEP meetings along these lines, in order of importance: (a) students who were in the process of being verified at the time schools were closed; (b) students who did not participate in the remote enrichment or educational services the school offered during the closures; (c) students who are displaying new or worsening maladaptive behaviors; (d) students about whom parents/guardians have expressed concerns; and (e) students who show regression or lack of progress in academic assessments as the school  year progresses.  

For those students who you know will have their IEP team meetings delayed, you should do everything you can to document that the student is not displaying a need for immediate COVID impact services.  We have created a sample data collection sheet to document the fact that you’ve gathered information from the student’s family, teachers, and any other service providers.  

Do we owe COVID Impact Services to every student with an IEP based on the services they missed out on during the shutdown?

No.  Again, IEP teams and 504 committees must make an individualized determination about whether a student needs any additional services as a result of the COVID closures and if so, what those services should be.  

What kinds of things should IEP teams be considering when they are deciding whether a student needs COVID Impact Services and if so, what those services should look like?

We think every IEP team and 504 committee should be asking questions about a student’s needs in three broad areas:

1. Academic considerations

• Did the student make the progress the IEP team anticipated on annual goals? (If so, the student probably has no need for increased services and/or supports.) 

• Did the student regress academically during closures?  

  • If so, does the student need to recoup those losses or can the student recoup those losses without a higher level of support?

2. Behavioral SEL considerations

• Did the student’s behavior interfere with his/her ability to benefit from the education/enrichment provided by the district during closures?  (You can elicit this data from parents, staff and others like coaches who may have worked with the student over the summer.) 

  • If so, does the student need explicit instruction and/or positive behavioral interventions in anticipation of future closures?

• Does the student exhibit new behaviors in school that interfere with his/her learning?

• Does the student exhibit any new evidence of emotional disturbance, a behavior disorder or anxiety?

3. Transition considerations

• Was the student unable to participate in transition activities during closures?  

• Can those activities be replicated or replaced now?

• Does the student need additional transition assistance in light of missing experiences?

• Does the student need independent living skills instruction that is best provided in-person? (Discuss timing of that instruction and address contingencies based on the possibility that new COVID spikes could necessitate future school closures.)

Should we be writing IEP and 504 plans based on in-person instruction or remote learning?

Each team should begin by crafting a plan based on the location in which the student will be receiving services when school begins.  We are also encouraging educational teams to include in each student’s plan, a description of the services that the student will receive in the event the school district is forced to close for in-person instruction due to the pandemic, when possible.  Not all IEPs or 504 plans will lend themselves to a closure contingency, but each team should consider whether any particular student’s education plan can be put in place now and if so, what the educational services will be for that student in the event of a closure. 

Can you share the wording we can use for the COVID impact statement for all of our IEPs or 504 plans?

Nope.  Nope.  Nope.  

We all know that the hallmark of services to students with disabilities is that they must be individualized.  Although it would be way easier to have a stock statement to include in every IEP or 504 plan, repeatedly using the same statement could create evidence that the school district failed to individualize a student’s services.  

Instead of a single stock statement, we at KSB have crafted a few examples of COVID impact statements based on several hypothetical situations. 

Throughout the COVID closures, we have tried to strike a balance between charging for our intellectual property and providing necessary resources for schools free of charge.  We have decided to offer the forms referenced above without charge.  However, if you are not a regular KSB client, you should check with your upline administration and/or your school district’s attorney before using these forms.  We will also be holding a free Special Education focused Q&A Webinar this Friday at 10:00.  You can join the webinar by clicking here.  

Congratulations! You’ve Been Sued. Kind Of.

On July 28, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York on behalf of students with disabilities and their parents.  The plaintiffs claim they have been denied services during school closures caused or ordered by the defendants due to COVID-19 in violation of various state and federal special education and disability laws.  They are seeking an order that the defendants have violated the U.S. Constitution, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and state constitutions and laws.  Based on these legal theories, they are also seeking an injunction directing the defendants to reopen schools immediately, to provide the plaintiffs with everything required by their current IEPs, and orders for independent evaluations, compensatory education, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and costs and attorney fees.  As we in the legal business call it, they’ve filed a “kitchen sink” lawsuit.

“So what” you say, “I’m not a New York school district.  This has nothing to do with me!”  To quote the great philosopher Bart Simpson, “Oh, contraire mon frère.”  The defendants in the lawsuit include “the SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE UNITED STATES[.]”  And they weren’t kidding.  They made a valiant, albeit flawed, attempt to list every single school district in the United States as a defendant.  You can find a list of the purported school districts listed by state here.  Additionally, press reports indicate that at last count, at least two hundred families in ten states have joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs.  It may be just a matter of time before they find a plaintiff in Nebraska or South Dakota.

“So what” you say again.  “It’s like you’ve always said, anyone with a filing fee and directions to the courthouse can sue us.”  And we stand by that statement.  However, knowing that you have been or might be sued triggers certain duties on behalf of potential litigants.  In Nebraska, "when the prospect of litigation is present, parties are required to preserve documents that may be relevant to the issues to be raised, and their failure to do so may result in a finding of spoliation of evidence.  The obligation to preserve evidence begins when a party knows or should have known that the evidence is relevant to future or current litigation." Bd. of Regents v. BASF Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82492 at 14-15 (D. Neb. 2007)(citing Stevenson v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 354 F.3d 739, 746 (8th Cir. 1993)(emphasis added). South Dakota has taken a nearly identical stance.  See also Blazer v. Gall, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128629, at *10 (D.S.D. 2019) (citing Stevenson, 54 F.3d 739 at 746). 

Although you may not have been served yet, we believe that it is prudent for each school district to begin taking steps immediately to preserve any tangible documents and items, electronic documents, and all electronically stored information related to special education services provided to students during the 2019-20 school year or requested by parents of special education students since schools closed or contemplated closing in the spring.  This includes any and all relevant e-mail communications, as well as records that may be managed by your services providers, such as an intermediate service agency (like an ESU) and others with whom you contract for providing services under the named laws.  We recommend preserving potentially relevant documentation out of an abundance of caution.  After all, court-imposed sanctions for failing to preserve evidence can prove costly in any litigation.  For this reason alone, it is extremely important that all relevant information in whatever form be preserved.  You will also be required to suspend any routine document retention/destruction policy or programs that automatically overwrite or delete electronic records.  

KSB will be sending a “litigation hold” document to all of our school district and ESU clients with whom we have an engagement letter that you will need to distribute to relevant staff, which in the context of a lawsuit as broad as this is probably all staff members.  Additional guidance and information will be included in an explanatory memorandum.  If your school district works with a different law firm, you should contact your attorneys for advice on how to proceed. 

As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact your favorite KSB lawyer or Bobby Truhe at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com or (402) 804-8000.