Frank LoMonte's article in the Journal of Free Speech Law critiques "one board" policies, which mandate unanimous public statements from elected or appointed members on government bodies, even if they privately disagree. Such policies are common in school boards and college trustee boards across the U.S., often justified as maintaining the appearance of unity. The piece argues that these restrictions violate First Amendment rights by preventing dissenting voices from being heard publicly, undermining democratic accountability.
Written by the local model on 2026-09-14,
using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the
same event (that is the story summary below).
Story summary
In Michigan, Michigan State University recently demanded its publicly elected trustees adhere to a code of conduct under threat of disciplinary action. This conduct policy prohibits trustees from sharing any information with the public or press without explicit permission, aiming to suppress dissent within the often contentious board. According to Eugene Volokh in *Reason Magazine*, such policies, known as "one voice" or "unanimity," are not just theoretical but actually enforced by various government bodies across the United States. These restrictions typically mandate that board members do not express disagreement with the majority decision after a vote, ostensibly to project an image of unity and consensus. Volokh argues this is unconstitutional, as it stifles free speech on political issues.
Written for “Free Speech And Legal Limits” on 2026-09-15,
grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.
Why this leaning score
The article's own words the score was based on. Each is quoted
verbatim and was checked against the article text before being
stored, so you can find it in the original.
-
If you purposefully set out to concoct a government policy guaranteed to be unconstitutional, here is how you would do it.
left criticizes policies as unconstitutional
-
These policies typically provide that members of elected or appointed governing bodies are forbidden from expressing disagreement with the body's majority position once an issue has been voted on.
left describes restrictions on free speech in government bodies
-
There is no doctrinal support for the position that attaining government office means forfeiting all free speech rights.
left argues against restricting free speech of elected officials
Leaning score -0.45 for article 9469 (high confidence, 3 verified quotes) · logged 2026-09-14
If you purposefully set out to concoct a government policy guaranteed to be unconstitutional, here is how you would do it.
asserted
do → set → it
You would impose a restraint that forbids people from expressing viewpoints on contested political issues that dissent from the government's official position.
asserted
that → impose → position
And you would justify the restraint by arguing that, if the citizenry were given the whole truth, they might think less of the government.
uncertain
they → justify → government
This restraint doesn't exist in the fever dream of a constitutional law professor writing a final exam.
asserted
professor → exist → exam
It's called a "one board" or "one voice" policy, and it appears to be commonplace at school boards, college trustee boards, and other government policymaking bodies across the United States.
asserted
it → call → States
These policies typically provide that members of elected or appointed governing bodies are forbidden from expressing disagreement with the body's majority position once an issue has been voted on.
asserted
issue → provide → position
The rationale for them is simple: to create the impression that the board is united—even if the unanimity is feigned.
asserted
unanimity → create → impression
To cite just one example, school districts across the Flint, Michigan, area reportedly enforce regulations that forbid elected school board members from "publicly sharing their opinions on any school district issues," requiring board members to submit any questions they receive to the district superintendent.
uncertain
they → cite → superintendent
At the higher education level, Michigan State University recently demanded that its publicly elected trustees accede, under threat of discipline, to a code of conduct that forbids sharing any information with the public or press without permission, part of a package of restrictions that is overtly intended to dampen dissent within the often-fractious board.
asserted
that → demand → board
Similar constraints have been imposed by elected or appointed governing boards throughout the country.
asserted
constraints → impose → country
This article concludes that "one board" rules are indefensible both as a matter of First Amendment law and as a matter of public policy.
asserted
rules → conclude → policy
There is no doctrinal support for the position that attaining government office means forfeiting all free speech rights.
asserted
attaining → be → rights
The ability to dissent from the government's official viewpoint is so foundational to the purpose and function of the First Amendment that it cannot be implicitly waived by assuming a governmental position.
asserted
it → dissent → position
In particular, gagging board members who are popularly elected, as opposed to appointed, squarely implicates the First Amendment right of their constituents to receive information—information that may be critical in deciding whether to reelect or replace sitting officeholders.
uncertain
that → gag → officeholders
This article begins in Part I by setting out the boilerplate First Amendment principles that sharply limit the authority of government agencies to restrain speech or to punish speakers for the content of their messages.
asserted
that → begin → messages
Part II examines how courts have come to tolerate more speech-restrictive policies in the workplace setting, in deference to the countervailing efficiency concerns of government managers.
asserted
courts → examine → managers
Part III inquires whether people in elected or appointed lawmaking positions—positions where speaking to the public is an intrinsic responsibility of the role—have the benefit of full First Amendment protection when they speak, or only the diminished level of protection that applies to rank-and-file employees.
asserted
that → inquire → employees
In light of these principles, Part IV then examines the phenomenon of the "one board" or "one voice" policy in government service and considers how a constitutional challenge by speakers restricted from expressing dissenting viewpoints might play out.
uncertain
challenge → examine → viewpoints
The final section concludes that, both as a matter of constitutional law and as a matter of sound civic policy, it is intolerable to gag policymaking board members—the government employees whose voices the public most needs to hear—from speaking candidly about why they cast their votes.
asserted
they → conclude → votes
The Aporia