Sweetwater County school district board tables revisions to public comment policy
ROCK SPRINGS — District parents recently questioned whether public comment policy changes support their roles as advocates for their children, leading to a decision by the Sweetwater County School District No. 1 Board of Trustees to table the issue.
Parents also told trustees during the board’s regular meeting on Monday, Sept. 8, the new proposed policy could limit their voices.
The SCSD No. 1 Board of Trustees is considering adding the following to Policy KD: “Speakers may comment on district policies, operations, and programs or other matters that relate directly to the school district and the board’s business. We ask that issues that are not of general importance to the broader community or relevant to the board’s governance of the district should be addressed through appropriate administrative channels.
“Comments regarding the performance or employment of individual district employees are not permitted during public comment. Formal complaints about school personnel may be submitted to the Board of Trustees in accordance with policy KLD and using the form in KLD-E. Staff complaints or grievances should follow the procedures outlined in Policy GBM. Comments regarding individual students will not be permitted. The district is legally prohibited from discussing confidential student matters in a public forum.”
Referencing prior case
Rock Springs resident Laura Pavey spoke to the board, opposing the new public comment policy. She shared a 2022 case between Sheridan County resident Harry Pollak and Sheridan County School District No. 2 and its former board chair Susan Wilson.
According to an Oct. 31, 2024, news article in The Sheridan Press, Harry Pollak filed suit in March of 2022 against all nine board members of Sheridan County School District No. 2 in individual and official capacities for infringement of free rights speech. While the district court found there is no issue with the board’s personnel policy restricting personnel matters, as the board is commonly discussing school policies and procedures, the court did find the interpretation of the policy to exclude all speakers who mention individual employees is unreasonable and unconstitutional.
The court also found the personnel policy was unconstitutionally enforced against Pollack because his comments were critical, while speakers expressing positive comments that also violated personnel policy were not similarly restricted. A judgment was entered against former board chair Sue Wilson in favor of Pollak, and he received nominal damages of $17.91 for the unconstitutional enforcement of the personnel policy against him. Pavey noted the $17.91 is “the symbolic amount referencing the year of the First Amendment’s ratification.”
Pavey said she has been communicating with Pollack about SCSD No. 1’s proposed change in the public comment policy. “Harry (Pollack) thinks that there’s a little bit of treading on thin water,” Pavey said.
Rock Springs resident Laura McKee said she also is not in favor of the new language in the public comment policy. The new language states parents can’t make comments about “individual students” during board meetings, and they cite FERPA. She said FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) does not apply to parents — it restricts what schools and districts disclose about students’ private records.
“We must let parents share their stories,” McKee said. “If we don’t, it’s a direct violation of their First Amendment rights of the U.S. Constitution.” This new change will eliminate transparency that the board “has talked so much” about, she added. “We can’t do better if we can’t share our stories, and we should never be silenced under any circumstances.”
Rock Springs resident Kelsey Hibbs said issues such as mental health struggles, suffering and parents being ignored are of general importance to the community.
“They are relevant to the board’s governance,” Hibbs said. “Yet tonight you will discuss changes that could limit the ability for parents to speak openly if internal avenues have not been successful.”
Hibbs asked the board to discuss how to make communication processes better before they vote on the policy. She noted the importance of making the internal avenues more effective, and a lot of people do not want to speak at the podium. She also asked if board members would commit to responding to emails from parents directly.
Why the change?
According to Chairman Cole Wright it is a legal change to the policy, not one the board suggested or requested. He went on to respond to the comments and questions about the proposed revisions. Wright said in the Pollack vs. Sheridan County School District No. 2 case, district court emphasized board meetings are not open forums for airing individual grievances but are, instead, structured opportunities to conduct public business and receive community input about school policies and programming.
“The policy was not drafted to permit viewpoint discrimination, negative and positive,” Wright said. “Comments are allowed as long as they are relating to public board business.”
He noted recent Wyoming court decisions reaffirmed board meetings are a limited public forum, which keeps comments relevant to board business, protects confidentiality and allows meetings to run smoothly.
Wright explained board meetings are where the board’s official business happens, and it is conducted in public so the community can observe and provide input. Public comment is part of that process, but it is not a forum for directing or managing the board’s work.
“Public comment provides input, not debate,” he said. “It helps the board hear community perspectives, but it is not designed for back and forth or dialogue in the meeting.”
Wright said individual issues follow established processes. When individual concerns arise or when initial channels are not sufficient, there are complaint processes that can come to the board through the proper path.
“These revisions do not silence parents,” he said. “They clarify how concerns can be raised through proper channels.”
He said student-specific or personnel matters must go through the complaint process, where they can be addressed fully and fairly. “This protects privacy and ensures all voices are heard in the proper way.”
Regarding FERPA, Wright said if student-specific issues are raised in this meeting, the district cannot respond without risking a FERPA violation.
“Student matters must be raised through confidential processes,” he said. “This policy ensures that happens while still allowing parents to speak on broader issues.”
Wright addressed transparency concerns with the new policy.
“Transparency means that the board’s work is done in public,” he said. “These revisions support that by keeping discussion on matters the board can act on.”
This does not stop parents from raising concerns about policy, safety or programming, Wright said. It only requires that comments be framed at the level of board governance, policies, programs, and operations. He said criticism of board operations will not be restricted.
In his response to personal stories, Wright said those stories matter and they can inform broader issues, but airing private grievances about individual students or staff and public comment is not appropriate.
Wright said these revisions are not about avoiding hard topics.
“The policy doesn’t limit voices — it protects the integrity of the forum so that all voices can be heard on relevant issues in the right way.”
Superintendent Joseph Libby echoed Wright, saying he thought the revisions don’t necessarily silence people.
“It puts some parameters on to make sure that everybody stays safe when they communicate,” Libby said.
Other avenues
Trustee Cole Seppie noted it’s “a tough line to tow.” He asked if there is a better way to present the complaint process to the public so that they know they’re not being silenced, but also saying there is another route in which they can still voice their concerns.
Wright said he would like to highlight those processes for the “Education Corner” portion of next month’s board meeting.
Seppie said he was in favor of tabling the motion, noting it would give the board some time to provide more information to the public about how the complaint process works.
Trustee Matt Gardner agreed that a lot of people aren’t aware of the complaint process, and there aren't enough publications about it. Board Policy KLD outlines the process individuals can follow to file a grievance. For general staff, Policy GBM outlines the procedure to file a complaint against a staff member.
Trustee Josh Sorensen motioned to table the new policy, saying it was best to table it because it’s important to show the public the board isn’t approving it in haste and is willing to keep listening to feedback from the community.
This story was published on Sept. 13, 2025.