Tamaqua Area teachers file lawsuit to stop new policy that allows armed staff
Schuylkill County PA November 16 2018
Teachers in the Tamaqua Area School District are mounting a legal challenge to a new policy that allows staff to carry guns in school, alleging the measure is a violation of the Pennsylvania School Code.
The Tamaqua Area Education Association filed a lawsuit in Schuylkill County Court on Wednesday — a week after a special school board meeting where droves of teachers, parents, alumni and students who oppose the policy failed to convince the board to drop it.
Tamaqua is the first district in the state to allow armed school staff as a way to defend schools against shooters. As such, Wednesday’s filing marks the first legal challenge to such a policy in the state.
“As teachers, counselors and other education professionals, we are trained to provide a high-quality education to our students, not to carry or use firearms in dangerous situations,” union President Frank Wenzel said in a statement. “This is a bad policy for a lot of reasons, but we are challenging it in court because we believe it is illegal.”
The Pennsylvania School Code allows for trained law enforcement to carry firearms in school. The lawsuit alleges that Tamaqua’s Policy 705, adopted unanimously Sept. 18, ignores “state law and allows school employees who do not have state-required training or experience to carry and use firearms.”
The code requires school resource officers to undergo the same training as either municipal law enforcement or state police. Anything less would be insufficient, according to Christopher Lilienthal, assistant director of communications for the Pennsylvania State Education Association.
Policy 705, as written, requires Act 235 training for staff who volunteer to participate. This training is a state requirement for anyone who plans to carry a gun as part of their job and is the same training that armed security would receive.
Tamaqua’s policy also requires firearms training that would include instruction on the use of deadly force, legal requirements, gun safety and fixing a malfunctioning firearm.
But school resource officers, often current or retired law enforcement officers, receive training that goes beyond what’s required in Act 235.
School board members have repeatedly described the more intense active shooter training they’d want staff to undergo from organizations such as the Ohio-based FASTER Saves Lives. But nothing in the 10-page policy explicitly requires this kind of supplemental instruction. And even if it did, it’s unclear that this would meet the parameters outlined in the Pennsylvania School Code.
School Board President Larry Wittig said the teachers union is “splitting hairs” in this legal case.
“They’re narrowing in on this because Policy 705 doesn’t specifically [elaborate on the additional training requirements] yet,” Wittig said. “We can address this. It’s fine. It’s no problem.”
The policy was meant to be nonspecific, he said, in order to allow for flexibility as the district fine-tuned the measure. He said the board intends to better define the requirements as it settles on specifics.
Wittig said the board has no intention of scrapping the policy but is exploring some of the other safety suggestions floated during the Nov. 7 meeting.
But the union wants the initiative stopped. The lawsuit calls on the court to toss the policy on the grounds that the school board exceeded its authority in adopting a policy that conflicts with the Pennsylvania School Code. It also asks the court to permanently bar the district from ever authorizing a school employee to carry a firearm unless the code says otherwise.
Pennsylvania’s Senate attempted in 2017 to clear up any legal questions over the authorization of school staff to carry firearms with the passage of Senate Bill 383. But the measure stalled in committee in the House. Gov. Tom Wolf has said he would veto it.
Tamaqua teachers say the lack of authorization by the General Assembly means Policy 705 is illegal.
The union supports other measures to guard against an active shooter, Wenzel said, noting that many alternatives were raised by parents during the Nov. 7 board meeting, including better screening of visitors, infrastructure changes, shooter detection systems, better mental health support and threat assessments.
“The Tamaqua Education Association does not object to the presence of firearms in school to protect students, but only a properly trained school police officer or law enforcement officer should carry a gun on school property,” Wenzel said in a statement.
Liz Pinkey, a Tamaqua parent and vocal opponent of the policy, said she and many other parents stand behind the teachers.
Questions arose during the Nov. 7 meeting about what kind of liability staff would face if forced to use a weapon in school. What if a teacher shot the wrong student? Or another teacher? And even if a teacher did kill an armed shooter, what would be the legal exposure?
“These questions weren’t answered,” Pinkey said. “As far as the teachers are concerned, they at least deserve an answer to these questions. I’m appalled at the behavior and arrogance of the board to say [this policy] will be [implemented] no matter what.”
Social media in the district has been active since news of the lawsuit broke, she said, with a lot of blame landing on educators.
“Somehow they’re being made out to be the villains here and that’s absolutely not the case,” Pinkey said. “If there’s a villain in this, it’s the people who enacted the policy and are now forcing it down everyone’s throat.”
The Morning Call
