A Rochester school board member has filed a lawsuit that challenges a newly revised bylaw which restricts what trustees can say publicly.
Trustee Carol Beth Litkouhi has sued the Rochester schools district and five trustees who voted to censure her at a Nov. 10 meeting.
The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation filed the challenge on Litkouhi’s behalf, arguing that the bylaw is unconstitutionally overbroad and violates her First Amendment rights.
Litkouhi was censured and removed for one year from all committees and liaison roles for a published opinion piece that revealed Oakland County’s discussions about a school enhancement millage.
“I ran for this office because I care deeply about our community and our schools,” said Litkouhi in a statement released by the Foundation. “Silencing trustees only hurts the families we’re supposed to serve. I will always choose openness over secrecy, because the people who elected me deserve transparency from their officials.”
President Michelle Bueltel, Vice President Jessica Gupta, Treasurer Julie Alspach and Trustees Jayson Blake and Barb Anness voted in favor of the censure. Litkouhi and Trustee Shelley Lauzon voted against.
The school board viewed her public comments about the county’s potential millage proposal as a violation of the district’s bylaw 1001, which states: “Board members will take no private action that might compromise the board or administration and will not share any document or information that has not already been shared by the district, including but not limited to confidential or privileged information.”
The suit claims that all board members received an “enhancement millage package” on Oct. 8 from Superintendent Nicholas Russo. It gave an overview of a proposed countywide millage proposal to be put on the August primary ballot.
Three weeks later Litkouhi wrote the opinion piece highlighting the ramifications of the millage.
“I was even asked not to mention the proposal publicly until after boards completed their votes. When I asked why — given that I’d like to hear from my constituents — I was told, ‘That’s not how it’s done. We shouldn’t influence other districts,’” she wrote in the opinion piece. “But that’s exactly backward. School boards are accountable to their local communities, not to county-level political strategy.”
According to the Oakland County clerk’s office, the proposal is not on any 2026 ballot and no other school districts have discussed or voted on the proposed millage.
The proposal, listed as an attachment in the lawsuit, would be 1.5-mills to be levied over six years and would generate approximately $700 per pupil annually for each Oakland County public student. The proposal would cost approximately $150 per year on a home valued at $200,000.
The lawsuit asks that the new policy and Litkouhi’s censure be voided as well as fees, costs and nominal damages.
The Oakland Press has requested comment from the district and the story will be updated as more information becomes available.