Exibit A To Srcsb Motion To Strike Two Paragraphs In Complaint

COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A Doe, et al. v. School Board for Santa Rosa County, et al. Case No.: 3:08-cv-36 1-MCR-EMT United States District Court, Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division

AFFIDAVIT OF PAUL GREEN STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF SANTA ROSA

BEFORE ME, this day personally appeared Paul Green, who being duly sworn, deposes and says that the following information is true and correct, and within 111s personal knowledge: I

My name is.Paul Green. I am over the age of 18 and a m of sound milid and am competent to tedfy to the matters set forth hereln. I give the following information of which I have personal knowledge,both freely and truthfully and without any threat of coerclon or promise of reward.

2.

1 have been engaged to represent the Santa Rosa County School Board and have continuously served as School Board Attorney since approximately January 1971.

3.

1 have reviewed the Complaint filed in Doe v. School Board for Santa Rosa Countv, Florlda, et al., Case No.: 3:08-CV-361. In paragraph 64 of the Complaint, PIalntiffs reference a meeting held on or about November 14, 2007, between staff far the Amerfcan Clvil Llberties Union ("ACLU") and me.

4.

This meeting was held in order to discuss possible ways to settle or otherwise resolve the grievances presented by American Clvil Llberties Union ("ACLU") staff which are now the subject of Case No,: 3:08-CV-361.

5.

'

Benjamin Stevenson, Esquire, counsel for the ACLU attended the November 14, 2007, meeting. Mr. Stevenson and I discussed the possibila@of resolving the dispute that Is now before the U.S. District Court,Northern Dlstrict of Florida in Case No.: 3;08-CV-301,

in

6.

1 considered the November 14, 2007, meeting to be a meeting held furtherance of settlement and treated the meetlng as such.

7.

,Prior to the November 14,2007meeting, the ACLU threatened to sue the Santa Rosa County SchooI Board.As such,the ongalng discussions I had with the ACLU in 2007 and up until the time suit was actually filed, all occurred after the threat of litigation

8.

Coming out of the meeting, Mr.Stevenson and I shared correspondence, true and exact copies of which are attached to this Affidavit.

9,

The first letter attached hereto fs a letter I sent to Mr. Stevenson, dated December 4, 2007. In that letter I provlded Mr. Stevenson with a draft memorandum and sought his input regardlng the draft prlor to sending it to Santa Rosa Coi-rnty SchooI Dlstrict representatlves. The draft

memorandum was sent to Mr. Stevenson to advance settlement discussions between the Santa Rosa County School District and the AC LU.

10. The second letter attached hereto was sent by Mr. Stevenson In response to my December 4, 2007 letter and pravldes the ACLU's position with respect to the memorandum and other issues relating to the potential resolution of its concerns,

fl

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF SANTA ROSA

A

Sworn to and subscribed befare me by this J J day of r h bee

h~c[G,200a. reen

I/helshe is personally known to me, OR has produced

as

Identificatlon.

CATHY G. SMTON llPl COMMISSION t 00469634 EXPIRES: Seplwnher0,2009

Boned Thru N&y PuMP UMmVnbn

(NOTARY S

Print Name

Page 2 of 2

6.

r5'rdf;bh

.-

I

-

~d~ SON, GREEN& MILLLA., P. A. lL.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 6B50 CAROLINE STREET POST OFFICE BOX 605 MILTON, FLORIDA 3Z72 (GO)623-3841 FAX (850) 623-3555

T.SOL JOHNSON PAUL R. GREEN JOHN L. MILLER BRADLEY G. JOHNSON MATTHEW J. HARGRAYBS

December 4,2007 Benjamin James Stevenson, Esq. ACLU, Northwest Regional Office P. 0.Box 12723 Pensacola, FL 32591-2723

RE:

ACLU file no.: 7033fSanta Rosa County School District

Dear Mr. Stevenson:

I am enclosing for your review and comment a draft memo that 1have prepared concerning the subject that we discussed in your office a few weeks ago. Of course, I have given a good bit of thought to it after the conference add have reviewed the material you gave me as well as other materid. I have also consulted with other attorneys for school districts in the state of Florida, because we do have a network that permits us to discuss o m various issues. Certainly, conducting matters which take place within the school system in accordance with constitutional principals is a matter which is Iegal in nature. Therefore, I believe the advice and direction on those issues should appropriately come fiom the legal counsel to the school system. That, of course, is me. I have discussed, but not given a copy, of this memo to both the Superintendent of Schools and the Assistant Superintendent far Curriculum. Obviously, my discussions with these individuals are confidential. Nevertheless, I can say that I believe there is a spirit of cooperation and if the ACLU will work with our SchooI District on these matters, then we will probably be able to achieve a great deal. What I would like to do is have you review my memo and then get back in touch with me after the first of the yea.to discuss it. Lfyou want to have additionaI bullet points added, then I will be in a position to discuss those with you at that time. However, as I noted in my memo, I think the important matter ftom the school personnel's point is that they have something in hand, which specifically addresses their major issues. Rather than discuss the whole matter of separation of church and state and prayer in the school, I prefer for the discussion to be simple, straightforward and basically, "here are the do's and the don'ts." Once we have achieved some basic agreement, hopefully, on the memo then the next step in the process wilI be for the appropriate administrative person or persons to present it to the principals at one of their meetings. It will obviously be discussed and if it is unclear in any manner, then we will provide clarity. Certainly, it is not possible to present a single document that wiII cover a l l potential questions. We may have to deal on a case-by-case basis with various matters, but certainly tbis memo will cover a high percentage of issues that will be ,dsing in the school system as the year progresses toward graduation.

I will also make the school board members aware by providing them with a copy of the memo once it has been approved but prior to the time it is presented to the school personnel. I have given a great deal of thought to the matter of including the memo or some version of it in

c..

Benjamin Stevenson December 4,2007 Page 2

the school board policies and have determined that that would not be appropriate. Certainly, our school system and the personnel within it are required to comply with the laws of the state of Florida, the federal laws and the law that has been established by the U.S. Supreme C o a particularly in matters of separation of church and state, Perhaps some reference in the portion of our policies that deals with nondiscrimination might be appropriate. Nevertheless, to date, I have not had a response from any of the other school districts to my request for copies of my of their school board policies which address these-matters. Thus, I think it is more appropriate to address them fiom an administrative standpoint. However, given the nature of some of the issues in bur school district, I certainly wanted the school board members to h o w what is taking place and therefore, they will be receiving a copy of the memo as I indicated. As I stated, I will be back in my office after the f i s t of the year. There will be certain periods of time I will be out during January, but they will be relatively brief and not for more than few days at a time. CertainZy, we should be abIe to complete these matters during the month of February or March and be set for the events that occur around graduation and seem to bring the greatest amount of criticism from certain individuals. Again, I appreciate your coope from you after the first of the year. Wi

PRGlcgs Encl.

r to date, and I look forward to hearing

MEMO

TO:

File - Public Records Request

FROM,

school

RE:

Prayer at grad ation, commencement exercises and special school events

DATE:

11/27/07

<

I do not recall if I have ever personnel concerning the issue of prayer in public publicity from time to request concerning have

Attorney

\

7

\

give specific direction to SchooI Board of church and state and in particular the events. Of course, that issue does get received a voluminous public records from the ACW. Further, they and the Superintendent on this responsive to the public

Frankly, I think trying to do a treatise on separation of church and state under the serve no purpose. Rather, our simple and straightforward on that separation of church and been answered with certainty. approach insofar as possible, and if reasonable.

or an argument as to the basis for the law of our country would really need to have something that is hand, I will clearly acknowledge evolving. All questions have not been to take a conservative them out of lawsuits, if

Another very important factor in this matter is that superintendents of school, school board members, for personal liability in some of these matters if constitutional rights of others. It is certainly a federal lawsuit is brought by the ACLU on then a count is included in the suit for

Now having given some general overview about the matte explanation and recommended action/inaction into two I.

whether they be

am going to break the which are as follows:

CIergy and other persons associated with religious groups -clergy should not be invited nor permitted to deliver invocations at public school graduation ceremonies or events. While I recognize this may well be contrary to what has taken place in the past, it is my considered opinion that it is the wise course of action, If the school wishes to have a ceremony that is religious in nature, then that ceremony needs to be unconnected with the school, not directed or supervised by school personnel and should not take place on school property, An example of this might be a baccalaureate ceremony

which takes place at a local church and the program and all things associated with the pro'grarn are directed solely by the church. The event, itself, is nor endorsed by the school, and certainly attendance by the Student speakers clergy. Student exercised at the

is an area that is not as clear as the area involving the have some free speech rights, so long as they are not of or with the prior approval of school officials. in this area. Perhaps some examples would if the school selected -a student to give - the specific invocation or benediction were of the school. However, if a student other achievement and hjs/her from student" and if that a religious nature as part an exercise in free student cannot be be included in the .. .-. -.

speech.

I guess it would probably be impossibIe conceivable situation; therefore, I will specific situations.

a directive which would cover every and will be available to address

t

Thank you for giving this very serious matt r your thoughtful consideration.

Paul R Green School Board Attorney for the School Board of Santa Rosa County, FIorida

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

POUNDATIDN OF FLORIDA

\nnvmclun.arg h

l

w Rca ~ l o ~ u&lcr!

P.0. De* Irn Pmmln, ).I 31591-2723 ~ W A ~ I IJALIII~~ N ~~ti~fllffl

Slnff Attorney

T BSUA29912B

F 786363.1985 [email protected]:

Paul R. Green

January 4,2008

Johnson, Green & Miller, P.A. P.O. Box 605 Milton, FL 32572

VIA U.S.MAIL

Re:

Santa Rosa County SchooI District: Draft Directive on Religious Practices ACLU File No.: 7033

Dear Mr. Green:

I have reviewed your draft directive for your client Santa Rosa County School District's ("SRCSD) employees regarding government advancement of. religion in public schools. We are encouraged by the effort that you have shown to bring the SRCSD into compliance with the law. In particular, we also believe as you suggested that a directive and school board policy should be straightforward and easy to understand. Your idea to spell out in detail the "do's and don'ts" is laudable. However, h e Memorandum does not address our concerns with sufticient specificity. For example, the Memorandum might have included more guidance about the following: (1) school officials leading prayers or directing others to lead prayers (in class, at events, or before sport competitions); school officials expressing personal religious beliefs to students (2) through symbols and speech; school officials participating in student, religious-club (3) meetings; (4) the appropriateness of invited guests, like youth pastors, remaining neutrality about religion and regularly attending student, religious-club meetings; ( 5 ) the use of religious music; ( 6 ) the celebration of religious holidays; the use of places of worship for school events; (7) (8) teaching of religion and the bible as part of a class or as a subject itself; (9) students or school officials distributing religious materials on school grounds; and

(10) student expression of religious views. Furthermore, the Memorandum might have framed SRCSD's concerns with government advancement of religion as stemming from its desire to be in, compliance with American values and the Constitution, instead of being a reaction to the ACLU's threats of lawsuits or "disgruntled parents." The Memorandum might seek to provide guidance to school officials who must abide by it instead of presenting the law as unclear or evolving. This Memorandum is a start, but it needs to be more detailed, cover a broader range of topics, and specify more example violations. Richardson Independent School District provides an example of school policy on religious GROUND:A practices at school. Its policy is reproduced in FINDINGCOMMON GUIDETO RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLand is available on the Freedom Forum's website at http:N www..€reedonrforwn.ord publications/ fist/ £indin~common~ound/ FCG-complete.pdf, starting at pdf-page 221. The ACLU does not fully endorse this policy and the policy needs to be updated to reflect the holding in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision of Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S.. 290 (2000) as well as other relevant Eleventh Circuit decisions. However, it does provide a starting point both to content and to form. Lastly, your decision not to advise your client to adopt this directive as a School Board policy is troubling. While certainly a directive will place current SRCSD employees on notice of the Superintendent's position and the law, it is questionable how later-hired employees will be informed of this directive and de facto policy. This is especially important because a school-board policy would give future employees notice of its policy so that they do not h d themselves as a defendant in a lawsuit with exposure to personal liability. As we discussed in my office, we would prefer to work with you and your client to reach a mutually acceptable solution to the Establishment-Clause violations evident in SRCSD. And I believe you and we are continuing along this path, as your draft directive is a good start. However, any solution fashioned collaboratively would necessarily-haveto provide similar guidance and erforcement as a court order would. We would like to avoid litigation, however, your client should provide precise guidance to its employees about what will and what will not be permitted in its schools and establish constructive or actual notice to employees of the current law and that they will be held personally liable for violations.

Page 2 of 3

Please give me a call when you return so that we may discuss this further. Sincerely, /

&

\

Benjamin James Stevenson

Page 3 of 3