Money becomes factor in football coach case

What was once a question of church vs. state - of the meaning of participation on the part of a public school coach in team prayer - has apparently shifted to a question of money. A central focus in the Marcus Borden case now is just how much, if anything, East Brunswick residents should have to pay the lawyer who represented Borden for the court ruling that allows him to kneel or bow his head while his football team prays.

The question arrives in light of an appeal filed by the Board of Education to reverse the July 25 ruling in U.S. District Court. The school board had previously expressed satisfaction with the ruling, saying that it had hoped the courts would clarify just what a teacher or coach could do in terms of prayer, and that the ruling brought just that. However, the board learned more recently it could have to pay up to $100,000 in legal fees related to Borden's attorney, Ronald Riccio, who may be awarded such fees by the court.

The board acknowledges the expense was a factor in its decision to appeal, but in a statement the board also reiterates its initial reasoning for telling Borden last fall that he had to cease his participation in team prayer - that some students and parents were uncomfortable with the coach's role in the players' prayers, and his participation was a violation of federal laws. Though Borden argued the board's policy violated his freedoms, the board says the July ruling "does not put the rights of the students first, nor does it protect the constitutional rights of every one of the nearly 9,200 students in East Brunswick's very diverse population."

Still, the appeal represents something of an about-face on the part of a board that previously claimed it had "accomplished its goal," since in essence the board is now fighting to accomplish that same goal. Only now the stakes are a bit higher, as further legal costs and the ultimate outcome of the case are an unknown.

But if the question is how much should the school district have to pay, the answer certainly does not seem to be $100,000, not for its interpretation of federal laws that it saw as a way of protecting its students. The board is playing its cards right by seeking out pro bono representation much like Borden did the first time around. It is making an effort to avoid costs that would further burden the taxpayers. It may be a risk, but if it has solid legal ground to believe an appeal would be successful, it's hard to argue that the board is taking the wrong course of action here.