Why Official Capacity Matters

Megan Romano

Aug 11

7 min read

Why Official Capacity Matters - A board speaks collectively

8/11/2026 - 1:20pm - Updated to include the original letter Mr. Folsom was responding to from 7/22/2026

I respect the responsibility Mr. Folsom carries as president of the Rockford Public Schools Board of Education, and I appreciate that serving in a leadership position is not always easy. A Board President is expected to facilitate the work of the Board, communicate clearly with the public, and navigate disagreement while representing the institution they serve.

I also understand that holding the title of president comes with boundaries. I have served as president of my homeowners association for nearly four years. Although an HOA and a public school board are very different institutions, both are governed by a collective board and governing documents they must follow.

In my role, I cannot independently establish a position for our entire board or present my personal conclusions as the board’s decision. My responsibility is to communicate what the board has discussed, agreed to, or authorized—and to make it clear when I am speaking only for myself.

That experience is one reason I felt this issue needed to be addressed.

When I commented on Mr. Folsom’s post asking whether his letter had been reviewed or authorized by the full Board of Education or district administration, or whether it represented his individual views, I already knew what the district’s records showed. I had obtained them through FOIA before asking.

I asked publicly because I wanted to give Mr. Folsom an opportunity to clarify the capacity in which he submitted the letter and to set the record straight himself.

Mr. Folsom responded:

“Per Board Policy 0143.1, as Board President I serve as the official spokesperson for the Board. Facts in my letter are drawn directly from board minutes, agendas, and public records, and they speak for themselves.”

I appreciate that he responded. His answer confirms that he intended the letter to be presented in his official capacity as spokesperson for the Board of Education.

However, it does not fully answer the question I asked.

What the Records Show

My FOIA request was not limited to the final letter or the email used to submit it.

I specifically requested public records related to the drafting, editing, review, approval, and submission of the letter. That included emails, memoranda, drafts, comments, notes, and other written communications concerning its preparation or publication; communications with the superintendent, district administrators, and the district’s public relations firm; suggested revisions; records identifying anyone who authored, reviewed, edited, or approved the letter; and records concerning the decision to prepare or publish the response.

The district’s FOIA coordinator reported that an email search had been conducted and that only one email was relevant to the criteria.

That record was Mr. Folsom submitting the letter to the Rockford Squire from his district-administered email address.

He signed the submission email:

“President, RPS Board of Education.”

He signed the attached letter:

“Trustee and Board President, Rockford Public Schools Board of Education.”

The records produced by the district contain no documented Board or administrative discussion, review, agreement, or authorization regarding the letter before it was submitted. They also contain no drafts, suggested revisions, or documentation showing that a majority of the Board had explicitly sanctioned the letter’s characterizations as its collective position.

To be precise, a FOIA response establishes which responsive public records were produced. It does not prove that no undocumented conversation of any kind could have occurred. Based on the records produced, however, there is no documentation showing that the Board discussed, reviewed, agreed to, or authorized these characterizations before publication.

Mr. Folsom did not merely mention his title incidentally. He used his district-administered email account, signed the submission as Board President, signed the letter as both Trustee and Board President, and has now confirmed that he intended to act as the Board’s official spokesperson.

What Policies 0143 and 0143.1 Establish

Mr. Folsom is correct that Policy 0143.1 identifies the Board President as the Board’s official spokesperson. But that is not the end of the policy or the governance question.

The policy also addresses statements or writings by individual Board members that have not been explicitly sanctioned by a majority of the Board. Related Policy 0143 explains that individual trustees do not possess the authority of the full Board and that the Board exercises its authority collectively.

The issue is not whether Mr. Folsom holds the title of official spokesperson. He clearly does. The issue is whether that title, by itself, makes every interpretation or judgment he expresses the collective position of the Board.

The spokesperson provision identifies who communicates for the Board. It does not independently determine what the Board’s collective position is.

Routine communications may not require a separate formal vote. My concern is narrower: when a communication contains subjective characterizations of a resident and is presented by the Board’s official spokesperson, the public should be able to distinguish between the Board’s established position and the spokesperson’s individual conclusions.

In an introductory Michigan Association of School Boards course I completed about serving on a school board, one of the first principles emphasized was that a board operates as a collective body. The Board President is one of seven elected trustees and has one vote. The president serves as spokesperson, but the Board’s authority resides in the collective body rather than in any individual trustee.

Serving as spokesperson for a collective body is different from independently deciding what that collective body believes.

Facts and Characterizations Are Not the Same

Mr. Folsom states that the facts in his letter were drawn from Board minutes, agendas, and public records. I am not disputing that public records can be used to explain Board actions.

But his letter did more than cite or summarize public records.

It characterized criticism arising from a newspaper article as part of a “coordinated political attack,” referred to “disruptive behavior,” and stated that the criticism harmed students and the community. In his accompanying post, he further claimed that the criticism erodes trust in our schools and in the educators who care for our students.

Those are not facts established by meeting minutes or agendas. They are interpretations and judgments about a resident, that resident’s conduct, and the effect of the criticism.

The person who wrote the newspaper article is not a candidate running against Mr. Folsom, and I am not running against him either. This is not about campaign politics. It is about how an elected official conducts himself when members of the community question his leadership.

Rather than limiting his response to correcting information he believed was inaccurate, Mr. Folsom broadly characterized the criticism as a “coordinated political attack,” associated residents with “disruptive behavior,” and claimed that the criticism harmed students and the community. He then brought teachers and educators into the dispute by suggesting that criticism of Board and administrative leadership erodes trust in those who care for our students.

In my opinion, that response was distasteful and inappropriate for someone speaking in the official capacity of Board President. Elected officials should be able to respond to criticism without discrediting residents, broadening the dispute to include our teachers and schools, or portraying scrutiny of leadership as an attack on the community.

Criticism of decisions made by the Board or administration is not the same as an attack on teachers, staff, students, or the district. Community members can strongly support our educators, value our schools, and still question the decisions, conduct, and processes of those who govern them.

Bringing teachers and educators into a dispute about Board and administrative leadership shifts attention away from the elected officials and administrators whose decisions were being questioned. It also risks creating confusion and further division by suggesting that criticism of leadership reflects a lack of support for those who educate and care for our students.

Our teachers and staff should not be used as a shield against legitimate public scrutiny.

Why I Am Addressing This

I generally do not insert myself into public back-and-forth exchanges like this. I also did not raise this issue when the letter was first published.

I became involved only after Mr. Folsom repeatedly returned to the subject and continued presenting the letter through his official Board page and under his official title. I am not running against Mr. Folsom, and this is not a personal or political attack.

Before sharing the records, I asked him a reasonable question and gave him an opportunity to clarify the capacity in which he submitted the letter. He has now confirmed that he intended to act as the Board’s official spokesperson, and I am acknowledging that answer fairly and publicly.

The part of my question that remains unresolved is:

Were the letter’s subjective characterizations of a resident and that resident’s criticism explicitly sanctioned as the collective position of the Board, or were they Mr. Folsom’s individual conclusions?

The distinction matters because community members could reasonably interpret the entire letter, including its allegations and judgments, as representing the position of the full Board of Education.

If those characterizations represented the Board’s collective position, the public should be able to identify when and how they were established or explicitly sanctioned as such. If they did not, the letter should have distinguished the factual record from Mr. Folsom’s individual conclusions.

That distinction also protects other Board members from having positions attributed to them that they may never have taken.

This is not merely a question of titles or semantics. It is a question of clarity, accountability, and public trust.

When criticism is characterized as harmful to students, teachers, or the district, and those raising questions are portrayed as attacking the community, people may become less willing to speak publicly. That should concern all of us, regardless of whether we agree with the criticism being made.

A healthy school district must be able to withstand questions, disagreement, and scrutiny. Correcting factual inaccuracies is appropriate. Disagreement is appropriate. Defending a decision is appropriate.

Discrediting residents who question elected officials or treating criticism of leadership as an attack on our teachers and schools is different.Transparency and accountability are not political attacks. They are basic expectations of elected leadership.

I submitted this FOIA request personally and in my individual capacity. I am sharing the responsive public records because they are directly relevant to this governance concern.

The FOIA request, the district’s response, the responsive email and letter, and the relevant Board policies are included below so community members can review the underlying records and draw their own conclusions.

Megan Romano

Candidate for Rockford Public Schools Board of Education — Two-Year Term

The views expressed here are my own.