“To be courageous, these stories make clear, requires no exceptional qualifications, no magic formula, no special combination of time, place and circumstance. It is an opportunity that sooner or later is presented to us all … In whatever arena of life one may meet the challenge of courage, whatever may be the sacrifices he faces if he follow his conscience – the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow men – each man must decide for himself the course he will follow. “― John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage
Dear Friends and Neighbors:
The above quote by President Kennedy is a good reminder that whatever “arena of life’ we embark, as men AND women, each of us will face the “challenge of courage” at some point. That time is now for the eight members of the Souderton Area School District School Board who must speak out as one, or as individuals, and condemn their colleague William Formica’s obscene, disparaging, disruptive, sexist, misogynistic, and racist rants.
At the last Board Meeting on August 29, Telford resident and Souderton High School graduate Brian Farrell spoke to leadership. U.S. Army First Lt. Brian Farrell revealed his military service in Afghanistan and as the platoon Leader his promise to his squad to bring everyone home alive. He kept his promise. Farrell said:
“I have a mild traumatic brain injury and PTSD, but I can say that going through that experience, the one thing that I do feel qualified to comment on is leadership — and the lack thereof,” Farrell said. “Mr. Formica, you can speak your mind but step out of the leadership job.”
For his courage and leadership, Lieutenant Farrell was awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. Lieutenant Farrell Bronze Star commendation described him as having ‘demonstrated tremendous leadership, sound judgment, decisive action and poise under fire.’
Indeed, the Souderton Area School Board is now facing a “challenge of courage” testing whether they are leaders who display the same courage and leadership as defined by President Kennedy and exemplified by Lieutenant Farrell.
The eight other members until now have been silent on any response to Formica’s actions. It would be unimaginable to think the eight approve of Formica’s rogue behavior. However, their individual and joint silence is now leading to that conclusion. What can the eight do now to address Formica’s behavior? How can the eight members act now and prevent Formica and others like him who aspire to the school board from similar conduct?
First, the Board must once and for all, as one voice, condemn Formica by way of a forceful verbal public censure. If not, each individual member must speak out and condemn Formica’s behavior. Second, the Board must put in place policies to establish guardrails to prevent Formica and future SASD Board Members from repeating this behavior. In this Letter, I present the case why the Souderton Eight can and must publicly verbally censure Formica.
Disciplinary action is available to the Souderton School Board in the form of a verbal public censure pursuant to a recent United States Supreme Court decision. In Houston Community College System v. Wilson, 595 U.S. ___ (2022), the Supreme Court by a unanimous vote of 9-0 held that a local government school board member’s freedom of speech was not abridged when he was verbally censured by his colleagues.
On March 24, 2022, Justice Neil Gorsuch found that board member Wilson’s First Amendment rights were not violated by his fellow board members’ censure of him for actions deemed by the whole Board to be “not consistent with the best interest of the community college” and were “not only inappropriate but reprehensible.” In addition to the censure, the school board also imposed penalties stating Wilson was ineligible for officer positions and must undergo training relating to governance and ethics.
The legal question presented in Houston was “Does the First Amendment restrict the authority of an elected body to issue a censure resolution in response to a member’s speech?” Justice Gorsuch held that because the censure did not result in any hindrance of Wilson’s ability to exercise his free speech in his capacity as an elected official and member of the public, the Board was permitted to censure Wilson.
The opinion cites the fact that the use of censure by elected bodies to address the behavior and actions of their members is a practice with a long history in the United States. Justice Gorsuch held that “the censure at issue [by the Board] before us was a form of speech by elected representatives. It concerned the conduct of another elected representative.”
Lastly, the Supreme Court let stand the Fifth Circuit decision upholding the Board’s decision to limit Wilson’s eligibility for officer positions because this did not violate his First Amendment rights as Wilson did not have an “entitlement” to those privileges.
Will the Souderton eight verbally censure Formica as is their First Amendment right? Will they take a stand for the entire community they are sworn to represent? Most importantly, will the eight stand up together for our students and make clear that Formica’s public expressions and conduct were not aligned with Character Counts and not in the best interests of the community as is evident by the turmoil and upset he has brought down on our towns?
Given the silence emanating from the Board over the course of the last two months, I am not holding my breath that they will “model leadership.” If there is any response it will most likely be why a censure will not be undertaken. The Board may say, we don’t have a policy in place for a censure process or procedure, so our hands are tied. In Houston, there was no written policy. The Supreme Court affirmed the right of the other Board member to censure “the conduct” of the rogue member without a written policy.
The Board may argue that Formica’s acts were really not made in reference to the “official business” of school programs, operations or policy dispute. They may submit that Formica social media posts were not directed to the school district, the students, or otherwise involve his duties as a board member.
The official business of the District is to educate and teach students how to act and grow up to be responsible citizens. How can we teach students how to be respectful of others when one of the leaders fails to set a good example? His social media posts did involve his duties and conduct as a director. Formica’s posts did demonstrate “unprofessionalism” as a school board director, which he acknowledges. He also demeaned the teachers by his “great gig” and “stay in your lane” posts among many others. Thus, his words and conduct did cross the line into official school business.
The Board may try to maintain, well, Formica has apologized. Sorry, he did not take “full responsibility” as mandated by Board policy. Formica failed to conform to Policy 011 which states members are to “Models responsible governance and leadership by … Leading with respect and taking full responsibility for Board activity and behavior.” Formica did not “take full responsibility” for his words which Dr. Gallagher and President Keith initially found to be “inappropriate and in poor judgment.” They said, “we believe school leaders should be strong role models” and that “respect is required.”
The Board may try to say that Formica was exercising his First Amendment right to speak when he made his inappropriate comments, and it is not our place to censure him for exercise of those rights. They may try to split hairs and argue that many of Formica’s comments were made before he was elected and swore an oath to follow the law and policies of our country, state and schools.
Sorry, but because Formica “character is in issue” both before and after he was elected, all of his public disgusting comments are allowed to be examined. Here is why.
If the Board takes the time, and reads Houston v Wilson, that board’s public and “purely verbal” censure of its trustee was not a First Amendment violation. In fact, the Supreme Court recognized that the censure action that Wilson says was adverse—the verbal censure—was itself protected speech by the Board. Justice Gorsuch wrote:
“When individuals consent to be a candidate for a public office conferred by the election of the people, they necessarily put their character in issue, so far as it may respect their fitness and qualifications for the office.” The First Amendment “surely promises an elected representative like Mr. Wilson the right to speak freely on questions of government policy,” Gorsuch said, “But just as surely, it cannot be used as a weapon to silence other representatives seeking to do the same.”
READ: In Souderton Area School District, Elected School Board Members Should Be Role Models
Thus, the Supreme Court has clearly held that a school board directors “character is in issue” from the time they “consent to be a candidate”. This logic is followed by the law of Pennsylvania. The first qualification to be eligible to become a school board director as defined by the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is to have a “good moral character”: See 1949 Act 14 Sec 322 which reads:
Any citizen of this Commonwealth, having a good moral character, being eighteen (18) years of age or upwards, and having been a resident of the district for at least one (1) year prior to the date of his election or appointment, shall be eligible to the office of school director therein.
This is written into SASD Policy 004 as well. So, to even qualify and eligible to run, a person must exhibit “Good moral character”. Thus, each and every demeaning, derogatory, obscene word uttered by Formica, before and after his election, is at issue.
How ironic that a unanimous Supreme Court has pronounced that the First Amendment entitles the Souderton eight members to freely speak on a fellow members character and fitness for office and even censure that member here in the community that touts itself as a “A Community Where Character Counts.” Formica has “put his character in issue”. It is a “qualifying” mandate to run for and remain sitting as a school board director. If he does not resign, the Board must act now and publicly verbally censure him.
The time has now arrived for each of the eight Souderton members to “decide for himself/herself the course he/she will follow.”
I would suggest the Board consider “modeling leadership” in accord with Policy 011 by following the straightforward words of Lieutenant Farrell a true courageous leader from our community: “Mr. Formica, you can speak your mind but step out of the leadership job.”
