Nebraska State Board debates informal ethics standard for members' legislative testimony

The Nebraska State Board of Education spent more than an hour debating whether individual members should sign legislative testimony or mass emails without disclaimers saying they do not speak for the full board.

Board President Elizabeth Tegmeier opened the discussion at the request of Board Member Deborah Neri, noting that past iterations of the board have followed an unwritten standard that members not testify in opposition to a formal board position. Tegmeier said she had consulted the attorney general’s office and was advised that members retain free-speech rights but should take care not to represent personal views as those of the board.

The conversation matters because multiple board members recently submitted testimony on bills that diverged from the board’s public positions. Several board members said that practice has caused confusion among superintendents and other stakeholders. “There’s been a culture here and an ethical standard that we, as board members…have always held,” Tegmeier said, urging members to include a written disclaimer, such as “these statements represent my personal views and not those of the board,” when sending written communications.

Members sharply disagreed about whether the board should try to change that precedent. Board Member Kirk Penner said he would continue to “voice [his] opinion against bills that [he thinks] are nonsense and bad for education.” Several other members urged establishing a clearer culture so the board speaks with unified authority when it acts collectively. Board Member Maggie Douglas said the board “only has impact and power when we act together,” and warned that divergent legislative testimony could create public confusion.

No motion to adopt a new written rule or to restrict members’ speech was made. Instead, board leadership encouraged members to add disclaimers to written communications per existing board operating policy 1.03 and to reserve official board statements for matters directed by the full board. Tegmeier said she will continue exercising her individual free-speech rights as a district representative but will speak officially for the board only when so directed.

The topic arose during the board’s governance discussion and ended without formal action; members asked staff to circulate the existing board operating policy and suggested further conversation in committee if needed.