After Arrest at Loudoun School Board Meeting, Court Finds Man Not Guilty

by The Republican Standard staff

After a two-day trial, Judge Fleming of the Loudoun County Circuit Court acquitted Jon Tigges of a criminal misdemeanor charge of trespassing when he was arrested at the June 22, 2021 Loudoun School Board meeting for remaining in the meeting room to exercise his First Amendment rights after the former Superintendent, Scott Ziegler, demanded that a packed room of parents leave the building. The Founding Freedoms Law Center (FFLC), the legal arm of The Family Foundation, represented Mr. Tigges, along with Chris Kachouroff of McSweeney, Cynkar & Kachouroff.

Mr. Tigges was one of over 700 citizens who showed up to the June 22 School Board meeting to express their concerns on a variety of issues including transgender policy 8040, COVID mandates, critical race theory, and the recent firing of teacher Tanner Cross. Around 250 people signed up to speak, but the Board ended public comment abruptly after just 50 speakers and exited the room for a temporary recess.

During the recess, Mr. Tigges encouraged those who were denied their opportunity to speak to come to the front of the seating area to continue providing their comments for everyone to hear. Soon after and without any prior warnings, then-Superintendent Scott Ziegler announced that the gathering was an “unlawful assembly” and anyone who did not leave the room immediately would be subject to arrest. When Mr. Tigges insisted that he had a right to be in the room and explained that he would not leave, he was arrested and charged with criminal trespassing. Mr. Tigges was the second person arrested in the room while the Board had recessed. The other was Scott Smith, whose daughter was sexually assaulted in the school bathroom by a male.

Last week, Judge Fleming held that the Commonwealth had not shown that anyone other than the School Board had authority to remove people from the public meeting room. He also found that Mr. Tigges had successfully pled an affirmative defense of acting in good faith in believing he was in the room lawfully. Because of this, the judge did not address the First Amendment Constitutional claims of free speech, protest, and assembly.

According to Josh Hetzler, Legal Counsel for FFLC, “This is an important victory for free speech and the rule of law. The Loudoun County School Board and former Superintendent tried to silence Mr. Tigges and other citizens and to crush all dissent, but it has only backfired on them. Today’s acquittal helps vindicate Jon Tigges and the hundreds of other citizens and parents who want their voice to be heard.”

Jon Tigges said, “Today’s ruling is a win not just for me, but for all the parents and citizens of Loudoun County who have been systematically silenced and shut out of the process by this School division over the last few years. I didn’t serve my country for decades overseas only to come home and have my rights trampled on here. I hope this victory only encourages more parents to speak out and get involved to take back their children’s education and reclaim their basic rights.”

The Founding Freedoms Law Center also won a recent victory over the Loudoun County School Board for violating Virginia’s open meetings law for its conduct at the June 22, 2021 meeting.

This story first appeared in The Republican Standard and is republished here with permission.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

27 responses to “After Arrest at Loudoun School Board Meeting, Court Finds Man Not Guilty”

  1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Because the judge based his ruling on who had authority to remove people from the meeting room and not on the free speech issue, I do not see any “victory for free speech” in this ruling. The judge implied that, if the school board or the chairman of the board, had ordered the room cleared and Mr. Tigges had insisted on staying, he could have legally been charged with trespass.

    1. Had the Board cleared the room it would have simply changed the dynamic of the argument from whether the Superintendent had the authority to clear the room and stifle comment to whether the Board could clear the room and continue the meeting in violation of the open meeting tenets of the FOIA statute. The School Division would have lost under either scenario.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        Then the issue would have been over the provisions of the FOIA, rather than free speech. The Board chairman could have adjourned the meeting and then ordered the room cleared.

        1. Correct, but by adjourning the meeting, no other business could have been handled until either the next scheduled meeting or one that was called with proper notice filed.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            technical arguments ?

          2. No, legal issues regarding process laid out under statute.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            But , BOS and SB’s CAN lay out rules for public comment, right?

          4. Yes and no. They may adopt rules that limit when, how often, etc. but can not limit content. Charlottesville found that ou the hard way.

    2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
      f/k/a_tmtfairfax

      The court was correct to decide the case on the narrower issue of whether the Superintendent had the authority to order the room cleared. There was no need to reach the broader Constitutional issues.

      It will be interesting to see what future legal actions involve Ziegler.

  2. AlH - Deckplates Avatar
    AlH – Deckplates

    It was obvious that the superintendent just wanted to shut up the parents, and decided to “clear the hall.” He of course was wrong. Parents have a right to, in good behavior, discuss, disagree with and generally question any of the school’s decisions & policies. This is not disruption; this is relating to the people, parents hire as teachers, of the problems and recommendations for improvement.

    I believe that not all people reading the headline in the news will not completely understand why the father was vindicated. My recommendation is for the VDOE educate and or update superintendents and principals on how to conduct these meetings + the boundaries of the school board & school. Then do the same with the parents.

    These meetings should be a collaboration for improvements and positive outcomes.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I’ve seen similar behaviors in controversial rezone issues in the BOS.

      Deputies in the back of the room, The Chair warning people of the rules.

      “free speech” is not doing or saying anything you want anywhere you want.

      There are rules.

      how is this really different?

      1. The superintendent did not have the authority to do so. See Dick’s comment at the top of the thread.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Yep. I got that. I’m just saying that rules CAN be set that do limit public comment and it’s normal and regular across the state. But it strikes me a little like saying the County administrator can’t enforce public speaking rules at a BOS meeting when normally/typically they do as delegated by the BOS.

          1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            That is what happened at the Loudoun meeting. There was a time limit at least one speaker violated. When the chairman tried to enforce the time limit, the crowd began to get loud and rowdy and the board members left the stage. Then some of the members in the crowd tried to continue the meeting and speaking on their own. The Supt. then tried clear the room, with the results outlined in the article. The Board chairman should have adjourned the meeting. By the way, a board of supervisors or school board is not required to have a public comment period, except for those items for which a public hearing is required.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            RIght. I’m just saying that in my county, the County Administrator conducts the meeting, including cutting the mike and warning that deputies will remove. The BOS is there when he does it but it’s not the BOS or Chair doing it. So when the CA asks the deputies to remove, they do. I guess what this means is that , what?, the removed person can appeal to the court and the next time the BOS Chair needs to do the deed?

          3. I should start charging for Virginia Civics lessons, read § 15.2 Chapter 22 for other public hearing requirements for land use cases. Other public hearing requirements appear throughout the Code of Virginia.

            § 15.2-2204. Advertisement of plans, ordinances, etc.; joint public hearings; written notice of certain amendments.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            so… there is the issue public comment whether in general or specific to an issue that is a required hearing.
            And then the separate issue of what specific issues require hearings, and for each hearing there is specific code in the law – as opposed to one law that then lists out the specific things that are required to have hearings.

            What I don’t hear or don’t remember hearing is when the hearing is declared that they cite the code
            provision for that specific kind of hearing. They just say the hearing is required.

            I’ve asked several folks this question including some legislators… the County Admin, the BOS and
            not gotten the same consistent answer.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            I have always wondered what exactly REQUIRES a public hearing? Is it in the law ? Is it regulation? Is it a separate law or regulation for each thing that requires a hearing?

          6. Sorry..posted wrong code reference. Appreciate Mom’s notes. Also see:
            § 15.2 Chapter 14, Article 2 Meetings of Governing Bodies
            https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title15.2/chapter14/article2/

            § 2.2-3700.”By enacting this chapter, the General Assembly ensures the people of the Commonwealth … free entry to meetings of public bodies wherein the business of the people is being conducted.”
            https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/2.2-3700/

            Read your local city/county code and ordinances for other references too.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            I have and Moms reference(s) who also that there is not one state law that requires hearings and then lists out for what things.

            As you know Virginia is a Dillon RUle state and local laws and ordinances are based on State laws and regulations.

            “free entry” does not mean any entry at any time for any reason any more
            than “free speech” means anytime, anywhere, for any reason.

            You suggested more study. I agree but for more than just one.

          8. That’s not how the Code of Va works. There are 1580 items for public hearing on https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/ if you want to check them out. “Free entry” refers to attending open meetings of governing bodies.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar

            RIght. As I said, there apparently is no one law that says there have to be hearings and then lists for what things.

            So how would you know for what things unless you searched the entire code?

            “free entry” is not “free speech” nor permits people to give it in a room that is no longer an open meeting.

            The guy did not have the right to be in that room once the meeting adjourned, right?

          10. LarrytheG Avatar

            so if one wanted a list of the things that require public hearings?

            I noticed you just seem to have grabbed a random one instead of just saying at the beginning that there was no
            one place that addressed public hearings in general, right?

          11. Not random. I gave you two basic points–meetings in general and the intent of having meetings open to the public. I’m sorry I thought you were more familiar with the Code. You do usually have to check in multiple places for what applies to a topic using the search function. I also pointed you to your city/county code and ordinances for local requirements.

          12. Not random. I gave you two basic points–meetings in general and the intent of having meetings open to the public. I’m sorry I thought you were more familiar with the Code. You do usually have to check in multiple places for what applies to a topic using the search function. I also pointed you to your city/county code and ordinances for local requirements.

          13. Correct on all counts, sir.

            Especially, [t]he Board chairman should have adjourned the meeting.

          14. The power of enforcement lies with the Chair not the adminstrator.

Leave a Reply