Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

School Board Vice Chair Sean McGee drafted a policy outlining that employees of Suffolk Public Schools “must not engage in any political activity during work hours or while serving as a representative for Suffolk Public Schools.” The draft was presented to the Board as a first reading during the May 22 meeting. 

The policy does not apply to School Board members.

“My goal wasn’t to focus on all employees,” McGee said. “It was more for the seat of the Superintendent.”

In an interview with Suffolk News-Herald, Superintendent Dr. John B. Gordon III called the policy unnecessary. 

Ordinance 24/25-89 suggests the addition of chapter 7, article 7, section 7-7.1 entitled, “Statement of Policy; Definitions; Examples of Prohibited Activities; Curriculum discussions allowed; Role of the school superintendent; Disclaimer Requirement; Consequences of Violation; Protection of Employee Rights; Exemption of School Board Members.”

The policy provides the following definitions: political activity, work hours, representative, and official capacity. 

Eight specific examples of political activity are mentioned and are “strictly prohibited,” such as supporting or opposing any political party, legislation, or elected official; distributing or displaying campaign materials; using one’s official title to influence politics; making statements that imply or suggest the school divisions endorsement of or opposition to a party or issue; suggesting the division’s endorsement in personal political activity; use of school buildings, communication systems, email accounts, or social media for political activity; use of school events for political activity that the division has funded. 

The policy specifies employees are free to engage in political activity on their own time, outside of work hours, as long as they do not use their school position to do so. 

“Unfortunately, in today’s world, politics have infiltrated our school system,” McGee said. “And one thing I really believe is that when it comes to anybody sitting in a position of authority for the schools, we have to remain apolitical. And I believe that anything being pushed or printed or distributed by any SPS employee during working hours should remain nonpartisan.”

McGee said he was concerned by a safety letter sent to SPS families earlier this year. The Feb. 4 letter addressed immigration concerns stemming from an executive order that reinterpreted the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, and another that rescinded the designation of schools as “protected areas.” 

McGee said the School Board was not involved in writing or sending the letter, and he thinks the language in it “could be considered political and partisan.”

“If we want to say, ‘Hey, Suffolk’s a safe place for all students,’ that’s great,” he said. “When we start interjecting federal law, immigration law, mentioning of the new elected president, you know, it’s a contentious environment right now. There are a lot of people that are split on immigration in America, so having that pedal from the pulpit of the Superintendent, I don’t think was appropriate.”

Gordon said the letter was very similar to what many other Virginia school divisions put out, and some aspects of the letter were used in around 50 other division’s letters. 

He said the letter was also sent because of how many elementary school teachers said they were being contacted by parents who were afraid the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was going to show up at school and at bus stops. 

Gordon said the letter’s intent was to reinforce chronic absenteeism and ensure student safety. He added that they received no negative feedback after sending it out.

“The letter also reinforced to everyone involved, the school community and our administrators, what the policy is, what the practice is, the search warrants necessary,” Gordon said. “People sometimes just don’t understand the level of fear if it doesn’t impact you as an individual or your family.”