Despite what appeared to be overwhelming public opposition, the Upper Adams School Board voted 6-3 to engage with the Independence Law Center on Tuesday.
The Independence Law Center, or ILC, has faced backlash for its policies related to transgender issues and book restrictions in schools. Several Pennsylvania school districts have engaged with the Harrisburg-based law firm.
The ILC describes itself as a firm that “defend[s] human life at all stages and defend[s] the rights of the people to freely exercise their religion, as well as all the other First Amendment freedoms that depend on that first freedom,” according to its website.
On Tuesday, roughly 100 members of the public attended the Upper Adams board meeting, which was moved to the high school auditorium to accommodate a much larger-than-usual crowd. Thirteen people stepped to the podium to address the board. They included alumni, parents, a district teacher, a student, and remarks read on behalf of a former school board member. Every person who spoke publicly did so in opposition to the ILC.
“It [the ILC] is the legal advocacy arm of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, a religious organization and special interest lobbyist,” said Dr. Matthew Schroeder, a Biglerville graduate and father of district students. “This is an activist law firm seeking to forward its own conservative religious agenda through decisions in the courts.”
Several speakers questioned the ILC’s sources of income and said they want the firm to reveal its donors. The firm advertises its services to school districts as being offered “pro bono.”
“They encourage school districts to adopt policies, knowing they are legally shaky, and then when those policies are challenged, they offer to defend the school district for a substantial fee,” said Leslie Callahan, a former employee and grandparent of students.
Loud applause filled the room after each speaker said their piece. Many in the audience wore stickers that said “ILC” with a red circle and line through it.
Rising ninth grade student McKinley Lentz honed in on a previous comment made by board member Marya Djalal. During the May 21 board meeting, Djalal defended her support of the ILC and said she would stand up for rights, even at a cost.
“You said that we are in a cultural war, and you do not care about the cost,” Lentz said. “Well, I do, because that cost will not affect you, but it will affect me.”
Several speakers referenced legal troubles other Pennsylvania school districts have reportedly faced in the wake of partnerships with the ILC.
Rachel Elliott, representing a community group called Upper Adams Community Cares, presented a petition she said had more than 500 signatures from residents who oppose the ILC. In addition, Elliott said the group conducted a community survey through Facebook and found 227 people were opposed to the district working with the ILC, and five were in support.
Janet Mendez said she spoke on behalf of members of the Hispanic community who were “afraid” to sign the petition, fearing they would be targeted for doing so.
“I guarantee 25 years from now, the students will remember who stood up for them,” Mendez said. “The community will remember who gambled with their tax increases.”
Mendez followed these words with a call for opponents of the ILC to stand. Most audience members stood up. A handful of people remained seated.
Public comment on the topic lasted nearly an hour. At times, the discussion grew heated as community members shouted their opinions and argued with one another.
Board in a ‘troubled place’
When it came time for the board to voice their opinions, the division became clear.
With the exception of Gerald Walmer, each of the board members who had been serving on the board prior to January stood against the ILC — Susan Crouse, Kay Hollabaugh and Jim Lady. The five newly elected board members — Djalal, Loren Lustig, Tricia Plank, Neil Weigle and Heather Young-Cover, plus Walmer, voted in favor of the ILC.
“It saddens me that we have spent so much time and energy on issues that were not a problem prior to the swearing in of the new board members,” Hollabaugh said. “We need to get back to taking care of the students, all students, regardless of our personal beliefs.”
Lady expressed hope that the board can work through policy debates and said he does not see a need for additional legal counsel at this time.
“I would like to say I do believe this board right now is in a troubled place,” he said, and it started with proposed changes to the district’s book policy.
Plank said it is “common practice” for school boards to retain additional legal counsel and suggested the board’s current counsel, Stock & Leader, may lack expertise in certain areas.
“It could not be clearer to me that we need ILC as a supplement to Stock & Leader,” Plank said.
Young-Cover said her neighbors received letters from someone informing them of the ILC debate and encouraging them to contact her. Young-Cover said she encountered community members who were unaware of the ILC and others who regretted signing the petition against it. She suggested the “vast majority” of Upper Adams taxpayers were “unaware,” and that the “public outcry” came from a “few individuals.”
Djalal praised the ILC for writing “clear and fair” policies that she said the district lacks. Crouse asked Djalal which ILC-drafted policies she would like to bring to Upper Adams.
“One of them would have to do with social transitioning, you know, like keeping parents involved,” Djalal said, citing concerns about transgender student policies in other states.
Djalal said another ILC policy that caught her interest was regarding student bathroom use that is “sex based rather than gender based.”
Members of the audience started to interject, and one person uttered an expletive. Djalal cut her comments short, “due to the behavior of the group.”
Division, confusion on the board
Lustig made a motion to “accept the opportunity to affiliate” with the ILC, which Lady challenged.
“At this time, I don’t believe we can accept that motion, because we have not seen the contract retention agreement,” Lady said, adding that some board members may have seen a contract, but not all.
Lady said any contract up for consideration by the board should be made available to the public at least 24 hours in advance of a meeting.
As board members began to argue, Lady turned to district solicitor Gareth Pahowka of Stock & Leader for advice.
“Typically, as we saw tonight, contracts are attached [to the agenda] for public review,” Pahowka said, referencing the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act.
The act “requires agencies to deliberate and take official action on agency business in an open and public meeting,” according to the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records. “It requires that meetings have prior notice, and that the public can attend, participate, and comment before an agency takes that official action.”
Pahowka told the board it is “best practice” to attach any contracts, letters of engagement and agreements to the publicly available agenda. He sought clarity on Lustig’s motion.
Lustig amended his motion to “engage immediately” with the ILC.
A few board members seemed confused as to what Lustig’s motion would entail.
“And that’ll mean to engage and get a contract and post it online for the next board meeting. Is that the definition of engagement? How far does engagement go?” Walmer asked.
At one point, Djalal said she was unsure as to what the board was voting upon.
Pahowka recommended the board obtain an updated “engagement letter” from the ILC, attach it to the board’s agenda and allow for public comment on the letter at the next meeting.
Lustig said he would accept the recommendation as an amendment to his motion to engage with the ILC.
After discussion over verbiage, the board voted 6-3 to “engage” with the ILC.
In other business, the board unanimously approved the 2024-2025 budget with no tax increase.
The next board meeting will be July 16 at 7 p.m.
Mary Grace Kauffman, freelance reporter, worked six years as a full-time reporter for newspapers in Pennsylvania and Maryland. She has covered topics including business, crime, education, government and features. Mary Grace has a bachelor's degree in communication/journalism from Shippensburg University. She resides in Adams County.
I disagree! the law group is against LQBTQ and want to ban the books the kids can read. They are making our nation worse. I f parents don’t like the books then let them decide not anyone else.
Given Mr. Plank’s comment that ILC can provide legal expertise which Stock and Leader does not possess, I want to ask him what expertise a “law firm” with no expertise in education law would have over a law firm known for its decades of representing public school districts. The mission statements of ILC and its alter-ego PA Family groups makes clear what they wish to do: turn our public institutions of primary and secondary education into religious institutions. Not seeing how that comports with the constitutional requirement for “The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a… Read more »
Firstly, harassing board members, especially with anonymous letters, is never right. Those who do such things are cowards. However, voicing objection to what Board members want to do is First Amendment protected speech. Secondly, the agenda item was listed as a discussion, not a vote. I question that the subsequent vote was even legal under PA’s Sunshine Laws that require agenda for public meetings to be locked down 24 hours in advance with some limited exceptions, e.g., emergent issues or issues with de minimis impact. Considering the publicly expressed opposition to ILC over several Board meetings the issue was neither emergent nor of de… Read more »
Why would any responsible schools board allow themselves to be used as a legal Guinea pig by adopting policies that invite litigation. If they do foolishly decide to “engage “ this outfit they better have an agreement that compels this company to reimburse the school district for all costs , fees and damages as well as provide a real pro bono defense. An indemnification clause must be part of any engagement and I hope Stock & Leader provides them with sound advice to do just that. This is aside from the gross waste of the boards time on something utterly… Read more »
My answer to Mr. Wolf’s question as to why a responsible school board would allow themselves to be used as a legal Guinea pig is “I have no idea.” Maybe he should contact the 6 members who voted in the affirmative. Their arguments to date are vague and unpersuasive. The indemnification clause is a great idea that the Board should demand to protect the taxpayers. Sadly, in other recent cases it didn’t work.