Do parents have a right to record private meetings with school officials? A Mass. dad is asking the Supreme Court to weigh in. (2024)

Schools

Scott Pitta alleges Bridgewater-Raynham Regional School District staff violated his “First Amendment right to record government officials in the performance of their duties.”

By Abby Patkin

April 19, 2024 | 10:09 AM

A Bridgewater dad is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court following a nearly two-year battle with school officials over his attempts to record a meeting about his son’s special education services.

Scott Pitta’s First Amendment case stems from a series of virtual meetings he and his wife Roxanne attended with Bridgewater-Raynham Regional School District staff regarding their son J.J., who has autism and receives special education services through an Individualized Education Program (IEP).

The Pittas had previously clashed with school employees over the district’s belief that J.J. no longer required an IEP, according to court documents. Heading into a Sept. 20, 2022 meeting, Scott Pitta allegedly sought to video record the discussion to ensure an accurate account. The district reportedly countered with an offer to record audio of the meeting, but Pitta pushed back, arguing that only a video would indicate who was speaking.

In a video statement earlier this month, Pitta alleged that the district’s official minutes from prior meetings omitted a school employee’s acknowledgment that there was no data suggesting J.J. no longer needed an IEP.

“This is precisely why they have fought so hard to prevent us from recording the meetings,” Pitta alleged in an interview with Fox News. “Having an accurate record of what their staff members say in these meetings would prevent them from continuing to cover up their unethical and unlawful actions.”

Pitta informed school employees he was video recording the Sept. 20, 2022 meeting, and the district’s special education administrator abruptly ended the call when he refused to stop.

Parents’ battle heads to court

Though the administrator later reached out to Pitta to offer a compromise that would allow him to record video, Pitta had already filed a lawsuit against the district in federal court, asserting a “First Amendment right to record government officials in the performance of their duties.”

According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, “A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place.”

But the U.S. District Court disagreed with Pitta, as did a federal appeals court.

“This Circuit’s cases have found a First Amendment right to record government officials performing their duties only when those duties have been performed in public spaces,” the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals wrote, noting that J.J.’s IEP meeting was not open to the public.

Now represented by the Goldwater Institute — a conservative and libertarian think tank — Pitta is asking the Supreme Court to take up his case.

“Refusing to allow parents to record a meeting with government officials about their own child in their own home violates the First Amendment,” Goldwater staff attorney Adam Shelton said in a press release. “Parents have a fundamental right under the Constitution to control and direct their children’s education, but more than that, they have a high duty and a responsibility to ensure their children receive an adequate education.”

Yet Mary Ellen Sowyrda, a lawyer for the school district, told Fox News that Pitta’s attempt to record a confidential meeting isn’t a protected First Amendment right. She further alleged that Pitta’s lawsuit raised concerns about confidentiality for students with disabilities.

“The theory of his case was he should be able to have access to any confidential meeting and [be allowed to] video record the meeting, just like if a custodian were emptying the wastebasket in a building and wanted to walk into a meeting and video record,” Sowyrda told Fox News. “Had he won in court, that would have been the outcome, which would have been really dangerous in our efforts and inappropriate in our obligation to ensure that students with disabilities are entitled to confidentiality and protections related to that.”

Boston.com has reached out to Bridgewater-Raynham’s lawyers for comment.

In his video statement, Pitta said he’s hoping to bring his battle to the Supreme Court not only for J.J., but for other families of children with learning disabilities.

“If successful, by the time we go through all of this, it’s not going to matter for [us] — our son will be off to college by then,” he said. “This is absolutely a crucial fight for parents out there, for parents of children with special needs.”