Pace: the final frontier, chapter 7 — School district employee cleared of contempt charges

I've been mulling over an extensive post covering the ongoing school prayer saga in Santa Rosa County for some time now, but there's just so much material, it's hard for me to wrap my brain around it all. In short, this isn't that post. But it is the next installment in the series "Pace: The Final Frontier," as school district clerk Michelle Winkler (right, with her attorney Horatio Mihet) managed to avoid a contempt rap for her actions in having her husband deliver a prayer at a school-related banquet.

As noted here a couple of weeks ago in the last series installment, Winkler faced civil contempt charges brought by the ACLU, which must be distinguished from the criminal contempt charges faced by Pace High School principal Frank Lay and athletic director Robert Freeman. Basically, Lay and Freeman are accused by the court of willfully violating a temporary injunction that preceded (and essentially was the preliminary version of) the consent decree by which the school district promised not to permit organized, public prayer by its employees, whereas the ACLU --not the court -- accused Winkler of violating that temporary injunction.

The court's ruling apparently rests on the fact that the prayer offered by Winkler's husband at her behest did not occur at a "school function."

[U.S. District Judge Casey] Rodgers said that while Winkler clearly defied a superior's directive, she did not willfully violate a temporary injunction Rodgers implemented on Jan. 19, as the School District and ACLU hashed out a long-term written agreement.

[...]

Winkler was given notice from a superior that she could not offer a prayer at a Feb. 20 Employee of the Year banquet, but instead had her husband give the invocation.

The banquet required paid admission and was funded not by the School District, but a nonprofit organization called the Santa Rosa Education Foundation paid all of the expenses.

School districts are not allowed to use public money to fund entertainment events, Mihet said, so the foundation, which makes its money through private donations, paid for the event.

ACLU attorneys Benjamin Stevenson and Glenn Katon both argued that funding was a moot issue as without the School District, the foundation wouldn't exist and the employee banquet wouldn't have taken place.

Obviously, the court disagreed with the argument Stevenson and Katon made, and in my opinion as a lawyer, it appears to be the correct decision. The banquet, while it certainly was related to school activities, appears to have been a private affair and not a "school event" as clearly defined in paragraph 3(g) of the consent decree (PDF). It was paid for by private funds and held outside of school times and facilities. In that sense, it was like a private baccalaureate service held at a nearby church, which was conducted in response to the school-led baccalaureate that started this whole mess in the first place. Such private events are perfectly permissible.

This is a critical distinction, because the actions of Lay and Freeman unquestionably took place during school hours on school grounds, and so the luncheon at which their prayer occurred most likely was a "school event" within the meaning of the consent decree. So even though I have no doubt the Christianist whackjobs will proclaim the ruling in Winkler's case as divine intervention and they'll prattle on incessantly about how this shows that students ought to have the privilege of hearing God's word in public schools --oh, wait, they're already saying that -- the basic fact is that this ruling has absolutely no precedential effect on the Lay/Freeman case. The situations are completely different ... and Mihet properly understands this, saying in the article that he "is not going to speculate as to what today's decision means for Mr. Lay and Mr. Freeman."

I don't know whether I'll ever get to that Big Post I keep promising about this case ... but I think it's going to be the main topic on Monday's Blast Off! Radio show, so please make plans to join me then if you're interested ....

Pace: the final frontier, chapter 6 — Criminal charges for prayer in school

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. The controversy over prayer in school in Pace, Fla., just won't go away.

Can the staff at Pace High School not comprehend the Constitution? Hell, they don't even have to understand the Constitution -- all they have to do is comprehend and follow the consent decree to which their bosses at the Santa Rosa County School District agreed. But, no, apparently that's too much for at least three members of the Pace High staff:

Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and his athletic director, Robert Freeman, now face criminal contempt charges that accuse them of violating a federal court order banning Santa Rosa County school officials from leading prayers at school events.

U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers instigated the criminal charges against Lay and Freeman on July 22, according to Lay's attorney, Horatio Mihet of Orlando.

Lay formerly faced a civil contempt charge, which could have resulted in a fine. Freeman was not charged at all.

Rodgers' decision to turn the case into a criminal matter against Lay and Freeman means they could be sentenced to jail or fined, if found in contempt.

[...]

In a separate matter, Michelle Winkler, a School District clerical assistant, faces a civil contempt charge instigated by the American Civil Liberties Union.

On Feb. 20, at the School-Related Employee of the Year banquet, Winkler was asked to offer a "thought for the day." Instead, she turned to her husband, who is not a School District employee, and asked him to offer a prayer.

Now, I doubt Lay and Freeman will do any jail time for their transgressions, but they absolutely are getting what they deserve. They have flouted the law, claiming some kind of moral superiority as Christians, and they've been supported (or, at least, not opposed) in their efforts by the entire school district structure -- why else do Lay and Freeman still have their jobs? And Winkler's act specifically was condoned, if not approved, by school district personnel:

On Jan. 23, Jud Crane, the district's director of purchasing and a coordinator of the Employee of the Year banquet, e-mailed Winkler that she would most likely would not be allowed to offer a prayer at the event but would have to offer a "thought for the day" and a moment of silence.

Winkler e-mailed back that she wanted to use a prayer she "prayed about and received from God," that she was "unfearful of the current events," and she would "suffer whatever consequences for."

"I cannot be silent as God is my very life and Christ is who I am," she wrote.

Crane asked Winkler to send him the prayer.

"I'm with you ... but I'll get it cleared," he wrote.

After checking with School Superintendent Tim Wyrosdick, Crane wrote Winkler on Jan. 26 that the prayer would not be allowed.

"I'm with you?" Way to enforce that consent decree, Jud.

Look, folks: there isn't room for negotiation here under the law. You can't organize prayers at public school events -- not just because of the consent decree (which merely enforces the already-existing law), but because of the United States Constitution (ever heard of that?). If Christ is who you are, Ms. Winkler, that's fine for you -- but you can't foist that upon everyone around you, not legally. Believe it or not, not everyone agrees with you -- not even in Pace.

The fact that Frank Lay and Robert Freeman still are employed by the Santa Rosa County School District just proves that the district has no respect for law, nor for Judge Rodgers and the federal district court. If Superintendent Wyrosdick fails to take appropriate action to prevent further violations of the consent decree -- by firing school personnel who cannot conform their actions to the law -- then he, too, is demonstrating his contempt for the law and should face legal sanctions. A mere "slap on the wrist" or, worse, ignoring the transgressions of Lay, Freeman, and Winkler will only empower the Christianists in their illegal efforts to practice invidious religious discrimination against those who disagree with them.

UPDATE (9:19 am 8/8/09): I understand there is an email circulating among parents of students in Pace, seeking financial support for Lay's legal defense. That's all well and good, but they characterize the actions of Lay (and Freeman, I gather) as merely "asking for a blessing" (paraphrased) at a school event ... as though a "blessing" somehow is distinct from a "prayer," and as though it's somehow permissible under the consent decree.

Whatever. It's like arguing with a brick wall, dealing with these rabid Christianists ....

(I'll post the email if I ever can get a hold of it ...)