Prayer vote puts fed funds at risk

Friday, Feb. 28, 2003 | 11:27 a.m.

Ignoring stern warnings from their own legal advisers, members of the Clark County School Board refused Thursday to prohibit invocations or benedictions from graduation ceremonies -- a move that could jeopardize $70 million in federal funds.

School district staff asked the board to change its regulations in light of recent federal court rulings surrounding prayer in schools. Additionally, the federal No Child Left Behind Act has a March 15 deadline for schools to comply with its directives on when -- and where -- religious expression is allowed.

By not changing the district's regulations to fall in line with federal guidelines, the board is "jeopardizing our federal funding," Superintendent Carlos Garcia said.

But in a 3-2 vote, the board vote to keep the regulations as written, saying they were tired of being told what to do by the federal government. The current regulations allow prayer at graduation ceremonies.

William Hoffman, senior counsel for the school district, told the board "there is no legal question" that benedictions and invocations are unconstitutional.

Ann Bersi, the school board's attorney, also told members prior to the vote that she believed the district's regulations were not in compliance with federal law -- a legal opinion echoed by Nevada's attorney general.

"You think you have a choice as to whether to do this or not, and I don't think you do," Bersi told the board.

Ruth Johnson, who participated via telephone, disagreed, questioning how far the board would go to protect its federal funding.

"We do have a choice, the choice we have today is to do what we think is right and face the consequences," Johnson said.

Board member Denise Brodsky chimed in with "Amen, Mrs. Johnson."

"If you don't stand for something you stand for nothing," Brodsky said.

Allen Lichtenstein, attorney for the ACLU of Nevada, called the board's decision "shocking political grandstanding."

"The absurdity of this is matched by its arrogance," Lichtenstein said. "What is really frightening is that these are the people were are entrusting to teach our students respect for the law. How can any teacher or principal tell students to obey the rules when the school board has clearly chosen to ignore the constitution and the Supreme Court?"

Because Clark County administrators review graduation speeches ahead of time, allowing benedictions and invocations could be viewed as school sponsorship of prayer, something the Supreme Court has ruled against, Hoffman said.

Three board members -- President Sheila Moulton, Brodsky and Johnson -- voted against the measure. Board members Susan Brager-Wellman and Mary Beth Scow voted in favor of revising the regulation. Members Larry Mason and Shirley Barber were absent.

While the measure was being considered because of recent federal court rulings, the No Child Left Behind Act requires school districts to allow certain types of religious expression provided it is initiated by the student and does not interfere with classroom instruction. Districts that do not submit proof of such regulations by March 15 face sanctions, including loss of federal funds.

Following the board meeting Hoffman declined to comment on the board's decision and said he would be investigating possible repercussions relating to the federal deadline.

The board's next meeting is March 13. There was no immediate indication that the issue would be revisited at that meeting.

Gary Peck, executive director of the ACLU of Nevada, said this morning he has already been contacted by a number of students and parents interested in challenging the board's decision.

"We will no doubt move forward with filing a lawsuit unless the board immediately rescinds its decision and abolishes the policy," Peck said. "This is not about differing philosophies about religious expression. This is about publicly elected members of the school board choosing to ignore the law, a move that raise serious questions about their judgment."

Thursday's meeting was sparsely attended with no members of the public signed up to speak on the issue of graduation prayers.

Moulton said she made her decision based on what she believed her constituents would want her to do. Her stand was not inconsistent with having sworn to uphold the constitution as part of her school board oath of office, Moulton said.

"I can't, in good conscience, support this recommendation," Moulton said. "People who know me know I have a strong desire to protect freedom of speech."

Brager-Wellman said she voted for the revisions because she believed it was the best move for the district.

"I have very strong feelings about this personally, I'm sure we all do, but I have to trust the judgment of our legal counsel and the superintendent when they say this is a necessary action," Brager-Wellman said.