Union campaign access to district mailboxes limited

In a victory for school districts, an appellate court has issued a decision (San Leandro Teachers Association v. Governing Board of the San Leandro USD) upholding a district policy that prohibited the use of district mailboxes to distribute union newsletters containing political endorsements.

CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance filed an amicus brief in support of the district. “This is an important decision,” said Alliance Director Richard Hamilton, “because it upholds the prohibition and confirms a district’s obligation to place reasonable limits on the use of district equipment, such as a school mailbox, for campaigning. If the trial court decision had been allowed to stand, the union would have had one-sided access for political campaigning and the district would not have been allowed to respond.”

Background

The San Leandro Teachers Association placed copies of its newsletter in teachers’ school mailboxes containing information about the union’s activities. One of the two newsletters in question contained information about SLTA’s campaign activities to elect two candidates it had endorsed for the school board election, as well as information on what some members were doing to assist in the campaign. Another newsletter urged members to volunteer to make phone calls or walk precincts for the endorsed candidates.

Several days later, the district advised the president of SLTA that, consistent with district policy, the union was prohibited by the Education Code from using district mail facilities to distribute materials that contain political endorsements. Education Code Section 7054 states, in part, that “No school district funds, services, supplies, or equipment shall be used for the purpose of urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate.” SLTA filed an unfair practice charge with the Public Employee Relations Board. PERB dismissed the charge and held that the use of the school mailboxes amounts to “services” or “equipment” within the meaning of Section 7054.

SLTA and the California Teachers Association then filed suit in the superior court challenging the district’s action. The lower court agreed with SLTA and CTA that the district’s policy was unconstitutional and that mailboxes do not constitute “funds, services, supplies, or equipment” within the meaning of Education Code Section 7054.

Appellate court ruling

The appellate court overruled the trial court and held that the internal mailbox system is a “service” or “equipment” within the meaning of Education Code Section 7054. According to the appellate court, Section 7054 prohibits the use of district resources in furtherance of political endorsements regardless of the identity of the actor or the cost to the district.

The court also analyzed the relationship of Education Code Section 7054 to the Educational Employment Relations Act (Government Code Section 3543.1), which allows employee organizations the right of access to mailboxes and other means of communication, subject to reasonable regulation, for the purpose of exercising employee rights. The district argued that limiting the district’s involvement in political campaign endorsements, consistent with the requirements of Education Code Section 7054, was a “reasonable regulation” under the EERA, and the court agreed.

Impact

It has been clear that Section 7054 prohibits the district itself from using district resources such as the school mailbox system for campaign endorsements. However, this ruling reaffirms a district’s obligation to adopt reasonable regulations limiting other groups’ access to internal district mailboxes for political campaigning. If the appellate court had affirmed the lower court ruling, districts would have been forced to allow unilateral access to district communication systems for campaigning without being able to respond in a similar manner.

The court’s ruling clarifies a district’s obligation to limit access to internal systems for campaign uses and would likely apply to other district communication systems, such as telephones and e-mail, as well as to district equipment, such as a photocopier. The court noted that there was an important distinction between the use of the internal mailbox and a table in the teachers’ lounge where the union may leave its newsletters because the mailbox is an integral internal communication system, and its primary purpose is to deliver messages to teachers and faculty. Because the table is not primarily used for delivering messages, and because placing items on the table requires the cooperation of the recipient in order to reach its destination, placement of political materials on the table, unlike the use of the mailbox, is permissible.

This opinion is consistent with other court rulings that have allowed district resources to disseminate information about a bond issue or ballot measure in a fair and impartial manner, as well as the use of a district mail system to disseminate that impartial information. The opinion is also consistent with prior rulings that allow a board to adopt a resolution in support of a ballot measure at a public meeting, as long as the resolution does not urge the public to either support or oppose the measure and as long as the district uses normal, neutral channels to communicate the resolution.

This opinion also is consistent with other PERB decisions and court rulings that have distinguished the use of district internal communication systems for campaign purposes from the use of district facilities by a union or outside group, where the group might endorse a candidate, or a governing board meeting, where the board might take a position on a ballot measure. The Civic Center Act (Education Code Section 38130 et seq.) and Education Code Section 7058 carve out an exception for public gatherings that could potentially include political advocacy, because school auditoriums and board meetings are open to the public at large.