001meeting to order uh agenda item one public access to meetings this meeting is open for public attendance you may also watch the meeting remotely via live stream agenda item two we have the meeting opening and roll call roll call and verification of Quorum Carline can you please call Miss erer here Mr leac here Mr Kowalski here Mr Pope here miss pson here Mr Robbie is excused Mr Shader is on his way Mr Summers here miss Bushman here we have a quorum thank you agenda item three Pledge of Allegiance if you could stand for the pledge please pledge Al to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God IND indivisible with liberty and justice for all okay moving on to agenda item four public
002comments uh members of the public May provide comment pertaining only to specific items on the agenda in person or via email public comments on any notice agenda item will be presented during the public comment time of the agenda just a reminder that comments uh must comments made by the public shall be civil in content and tone affirming the decorum established for a school board meeting by the school board disparaging comments remarks about school board members employees students positions position titles and our district citizens shall not be made um it looks like we have one comment we did we get any emailed comments Carlin we did not okay thank you and then we have lean stop um if you want to please come up and thank you thank you for letting me speak um I just
003wrote up a few notes I'm not a good public speaker but I feel strongly on this one um I understand the meetings being held to get the organization process in place to comply with the federal and state Title 9 requirements to maintain our district funding my question to all but especially to you on the school board is when do we say federal and state requirements have crossed a line that's harmful to the education and the environment of our students 25 years ago if this board or School District had told parents we're going to let children as young as kindergarten decide their gender not only are we going to let them decide their gender we're going to affirm their gender parents in school districts would have been in an uproar it would have been a line
004that was crossed and I believe it would have been soundly rejected these decisions have come over Decades of dozens of decisions where we say to ourselves at home in group settings that's crazy this shouldn't be happening surely this is a line that is crossed but we've never stood up and said okay stop this is too far decisions like no prayer in school Bibles can't be used in school even sometimes the Pledge of Allegiance and now letting children decide if God our creator made a mistake when he created them and their gender that isn't too far our country our community and our children are yearning for a return to normal sensible education we're failing by allowing strings attached to our funding that dictate how we educate these children the environment in which they learn and for
005that I say shame on all of us have you decided what will be that true line when will we cross that line when will we say that this is too far will it be when sexual assault within the classroom is tolerated isn't that happening today with books presented to 8-year-olds when parents can no longer have access to their children and what their children are being taught is it going to be okay when birth control is passed out to 10-year-olds when are we going to say it's too far I would submit that many lines have been crossed and it's now time to say no this is too far strength of leadership by parents community and the school board is true service to our children we need to take responsibility to lead our children's education I'm sorry
006are we going to take responsibility to lead our children's education or are we going to turn it over to government officials in Washington or in Madison who blackmail us and blackmail the school School District with funding and intimidation I think this is too far thank you thank [Applause] you okay um let's move on to agenda item five we have the consent agenda this includes employment recommendations and that's it so we are looking for a motion to approve the Personnel recommendations as presented motion made by Meg second second by G all in favor I oppose okay motion carries moving on to agenda item six board policy we have 6A Title 9 informational presentation and for that we have attorney Shaina Lewis who's going to review some of the changes with us good evening the first thing
007I just want to make sure to say is that this is a challenging situation and the the question before you the issue before you is is challenging you're hearing from a lot of different people you're hearing a lot of different things and you're hearing about a lot of things some of it has nothing to do with what you're doing tonight some of it is implicated but I think it's really important to kind of figure out where we are where we've been and what the next steps may be the first thing that we need to talk about is Title 9 itself Title 9 is is a federal law that was passed in the 70s Title 9 does not use terms like gender gender non-conforming transgender there's no reference to those terms within Title 9 Title 9
008essentially says that its very core is that discrimination on the basis of sex in educational institutions is prohibited as a result of title N9 and that Pro ition against the Discrimination on the basis of sex we also look to title 7 title 7 is another law that was passed in the 1960s and again there's a long list of pro of protected classes within title 7 but one of them also is sex and there's a Prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex in title 7 we've looked over the years at the issue of what does it mean to discriminate against an individual on the basis of sex in employment under title 7 and in education under title n and cases have been decided in various federal courts across the country and by our US Supreme
009Court both recently and historically and over the years there have been a lot of decisions that have interpreted or helped to identify what does a what does a Prohibition against the discrimination against an individual on the basis of sex mean because that statement alone needs to be interpreted and applied in real world situations and that's what case law does that's what court cases do is it gives judges who are elected or appointed who are trained as attorneys and typically as prior judicial uh in Prior judicial positions it gives them the opportunity to look at historical information at other cases and issue decisions about what does the statute mean that it that we are prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex we look over time one of the things that that the court cases have done
010is they've ex they've identified what does it mean to have a sex that is then used as the basis for discrimination if I treat you differently because you are a male if I treat you differently because you are a female those are are pretty black and white situations it's been expanded and and interpreted further in a case from many years ago the 1980s price Waterhouse that discrimination on the basis of sex includes treating a female differently when the female doesn't conform to our stereotypes related to a female what do we expect out of a female and in price waterhous we're not dealing with a transgender individual we're not dealing with a a gender non-conforming individual um in the the sense that we're talking about now we're dealing with a a female in price waterhous in
011that case who just simply did not meet the expectations that traditionally we had for females and so the explained that yes when we expect something different from a female we are discriminating against them on the basis of sex if because we expect something different and they don't provide that we treat them differently that those kinds of cases have been issued repeatedly and have been reinforced both at the federal level and at our state level fast forward now to Title 9 Title 9 started as a a as a statute that helped to um primarily equalize what we were spending and the resources we were providing to Athletics both for female students and male students but it also included this prohibition on the on the basis of sex with regard to education itself and to the extent
012that we were depriving males or females with the opportunity for participation in different educational programs or activities that would have been a violation of Title 9 the Department of Education is the entity that is responsible for enforcing Title 9 and as a result they promulgate regulations or rules those regulations have been in existence since nearly the very beginning what rules are or what regulations are different than the law is that they get into more details the law still just says that we are prohibiting discrimination in educational institutions on the basis of sex and then the regulations flesh that out explain what does that mean in the whole scheme of things in 2020 the Department of Education under President Trump issued very detailed regulations concerning how we investigate and process complaints concerning sexual harassment and sexual
013assault they were controversial at the time they had nothing to do with transgender students or gender non-conforming students they simply had to do with the issue of how we process the rules and uh with regard to complaints and procedures for investigations over time there have been some concerns in application of those regulations and one of the things that that um has been a goal of the Department of Education since then is to take the information that was shared with the Department of Education as school districts and higher education institutions have processed those complaints and investigations using those 2020 rules to to make things better to improve to identify those areas where where the where the rules did not serve the educational institutions properly and so we find ourselves in 2024 with new regulations that primarily
014if you look at the new regulations 95% of the information in those new regulations address the concerns regarding how we process the investigations and complaints that are filed related to sex sex based harassment and sexual assault that occur within our schools and within our educ ational institutions programs and activities now that part of Title 9 the new regulations they're not it's not so controversial that's not why we're here that's not why people are here tonight that's not why there's been a lot of litigation there's 5% of the regulations that we're dealing with that do in fact take the term sex as we find it in Title Nine and from the Federal law perspective from the from the regulations perspective they do something that the regulations had not done before and that is take the term
015sex and expand the definition flesh out if you will that that definition and the definition now includes references to gender identity to sex stereotypes and sexual orientation that is the first time with these new regulations that we find those definitions within our regulations and that's where the controversy is that's where the concern is that's where the litigation has been and I want to make sure that we're clear on this the majority of the title 9 regulations that changed the policy that you're going to be looking at tonight has to do with something totally different it's about it's about how you process those complaints and how you process how you investigate those complaints relative to sex-based harassment and assault but let's talk about that expanded definition of sex that we find in the regulations and let's
016talk about the litigation that exists including litigation that is pending right now before a district court in Kansas that specifically identifies the Stevens Point Area Public School District really Stevens Point Area Public High School um or Senior High School um in the actual pleadings itself first let's go back to 2017 now the new title 9 regulations as I mentioned we've we dealing with the 2024 regulations we had 2020 regulations before that that had nothing to do with this expanded definition of sex but we did have transgender students attending school and requesting accommodations within the schools across the country including here in Wisconsin and we had litigation over the requests for accommodations and the refusals to provide the accommodations that were requested and the famous case that we deal with here in Wisconsin the one that
017we point to because it was decided by the seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which is the the court of appeals that that we're under the jurisdiction of that we have to take our direction from in the Kenosha unified case involving a student with the last name of Whitaker Whitaker filed a lawsuit under Title 9 in 2000 it was actually the decision was in 2017 so prior to any of what we're talking about here today in 2017 the court issued a decision and asserted that without these regulations in existence that they believe that title 99's prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex and educ educational institutions requires school districts to provide accommodations to students based on their gender identity and their transgender status or their gender non-conforming status and in the Whitaker case the seven
018Circuit Court of Appeals addressed pronouns names bathroom use and participation in other activities and programs when you have a student who was assigned male at Birth or was biologically male and who identifies as female or vice versa and in the the court case that was decided involving the kosha Unified School District we got the direction from the seventh circuit that in Wisconsin as well as in Indiana and Illinois so the jurisdiction of the seventh circuit we now have an obligation to accommodate transgender and gender non conforming students as a means of not discriminating against them on the basis of sex that's been the law here since 2017 and repeatedly when school districts have refused in Wisconsin in Illinois and in Indiana and litigation has ensued the court the courts enforcing or interpreting the rights of
019those students keeper referring back to the Whitaker case and that Whitaker case has been cited across the country in several jurisdictions where the circuits agree with the seventh circuit so where the judges and the the other circuits agree now I'm not going to pretend like there are not circuits so uh courts of appeal in circuits across the country that disagree we have right now a split in the circuits and one might think that this is a prime opportunity for the United States Supreme Court to issue a decision that's usually what happens when a split in the circuits regarding an important issue where people disagree where students in one jurisdiction are treated differently than students in another dis jurisdiction where the Supreme Court would issue its decision and Corey has heard me say this before The
020Supreme Court has had the chance to do this on several occasions and for whatever reason they've refused to do so the cases have been appealed to them they have had the opportunity and in fact in many cases accepted the opportunity to issue a decision only to decide that the case is moot when surprise the student who is at issue in the case graduates cuz that doesn't happen right we didn't we couldn't predict that but but not it's not to bash the Supreme Court but just to say that we could be here tonight and I could be telling you that the US Supreme Court has issued its decision and the decision is whatever it is and then I would be telling you that is what we would need to comply with in order to avoid being
021held liable in the event that we choose not to accommodate a transgender gender non-conforming students request for uh access to restrooms or locker rooms use of pronouns and um and names that attributable to their their gender identity but I can't tell you that because we are sitting here today without a US Supreme Court case but what we do have is the Whitaker case we have the seven circuit case that has repeatedly been upheld I say all of that because as I mentioned before 95% of the regulations that changed the policy that you're going to be looking at tonight have nothing to do with that issue they just have to do with the complaint process the investigate and the investigation process that we use related to sex based harassment and discrimination and sexual assault but that
0225% is really important because that 5% of those regulations actually do in fact take that definition of sex and make it very similar to what we've been using in Wisconsin because of the Whitaker case since just about 2017 and so we're here today talking about whether or not the school district should be adopting that policy and the purpose of doing so or not doing so and what that purpose might be if the purpose is to avoid that expanded definition of sex I can tell you that that expanded definition of sex does not exist because of the regulations it exists because of the Whitaker case that was decided again in 2017 seven years ago now I don't want to to abandon the conversation that that I alluded to about the existing federal court case in a
023district court in Kansas because I think that's on everyone's mind I think people are paying a lot of attention to it especially given that there is a list that exists that was submitted late yesterday that includes your senior high school on the list of school districts and I want to be careful with my words here on the list of school districts where moms for Liberty members send their children I'm not saying where you are enjoined and I'm going to get to that in just a second so there's a a court case that's pending in in a district court in Kansas right now District Court meaning a federal district court in Kansas we have two district courts here in the in Wisconsin we have the Western District in Madison the eastern district in Milwaukee and they
024serve our entire State and then anything that is appealed from there goes to the seventh circuit which is exactly what happened in the Whitaker case so the district courton Kansas was dealing with a claim that was filed by a number of organizations including including the state of Kansas so we had the state of Kansas their Department of Education we had the moms for Liberty and a couple of other organizations that pursued a claim against the US Department of Education attempting to enjoin to prevent the Department of Education from enforcing the title 9 regulations they are pursuing that claim they're pursuing that injunction and they did not specify what portion of the regulations they wanted to enjoin they just said we'd like the Department of Education not to be able to enforce any of the new
025regulations their arguments their publicity the um statements that they've made in their pleadings indicate that they are really concerned not with the investigative procedures not with the complaint procedures they're concerned with the expansion of the definition of sex within those regulations and so they pursued a preliminary injunction against the Department of Education and on July 2nd the department of educ or the uh District couron Kansas issued an injunction and the injunction specifically prevents the Department of Education from enforcing the regulations the new title 9 regulations and I want to make sure I'm getting the uh language clear here it enjoins the United States Department of Education and its secretary the United States Department of Justice and the attorney general and all their respective officers agents employees attorneys and persons acting in concert or participation with
026them from implementing enacting enforcing or taking any action to enforce the final rule promulgated by the Department of Education titled non-discrimination on the basis of sex and education programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance and published in the federal Reg register it specifically goes on to say that it enjoins them to the extent they are set to become effective on August 1st against Kansas Alaska Utah Wyoming the named plaintiff's School the schools attended by the members of the young Americas Foundation I'm sorry I'm reading this wrong young America's Foundation or Fe of female athletes United as well as the schools attended by the children of the members of moms for Liberty and then it gives the organizations until yesterday to submit the schools which their members or their members children attend now I want to
027make sure that I'm clear with my language here it enjoins the Department of Education and the Department of Justice from enforcing the regulations against those states that were identified not including Wisconsin and the schools attended by the members of the the plaintiffs and then the members of those organizations so it's the injunction is not against the schools it's in an injunction against the department mean meaning that the department cannot hold those schools accountable if they fail to comply with the regulations that's an important distinction there is also a great question before the Kansas court that they have not issued an answer on that the Department of Justice has a has appealed has has um submitted an interlocutory appeal to request in part an answer about from the 10th circuit that covers them to answer the
028question of whether a district court in Kansas has jurisdiction Beyond those four states that were mentioned that are within the jurisdiction of the 10th circuit we don't have an answer there so we're in kind of a holding pattern right now but we are not under any injunction here in Steven's Point even though your school your high school was listed as one of the schools where the moms for Liberty members send their children but there is nothing preventing you from doing anything there's no obligation in this case to do anything but there is an obligation in the regulations now I wanted to talk very briefly about the consequences of failing to to adopt this policy that is based on the obligations under the new regulations first I just want to say that in the event that
029you don't adopt the policy as a result of the new regulations that doesn't mean that you can avoid complying with the law if you don't comply with the law you are likely to be held responsible liable under the law if you fail to accommodate a transgender or gender non-conforming student in the spirit and the direction of what the seven circuit said in the Whitaker case this injunction against the Department of Education in Kansas is not going to save you it's not going to be a defense in fact we won't be able to even mention it it's not relevant because you're not a party to that case and that case doesn't do anything against the district it does something against the Department of Education just means you won't be held liable by the Department of Education
030but our district court in the eastern district or the Western District wherever this case would be filed or the seven circuit if it was appealed there would hold you responsible to meet the requirements that were established under Whitaker we also have to think about the other issues that exist number one it's just your high school who's listed in that injunction does that that mean that we adopt a policy that applies to your grade schools your middle schools your junior high schools but not your high school that seems strange that's one of the arguments that is being made right now to the 10th circuit that it makes no sense to have one school within a district or one school within a county be held kind of separate from the other schools in the area we also
031have to think about the fact that there are other enforcement agencies our state agencies are not a party to this lawsuit at all and our state agencies the Department of Public Instruction and the Department of Justice in Wisconsin which I mentioned the Department of Justice in that case in that that order but that was the US Department of Justice our department of justice is entirely separate they could pursue a claim against the district relative to the failure to adopt the policy or hold you liable under the various other laws that apply and use as as an example of your lack of accountability or lack of compliance the failure to adopt this policy but most important it really is the liability associated with your individual employees and your students who were to assert rights under Title
0329 not just your transgender and gender non informing students or employees but your students who are a victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment or your students or staff members who are accused of sexual assault and sexual harassment and both of those individuals both categories of individuals are entitled to the due process and very detailed requirements related to processing of those investigations and complaints that you would not be providing to them if you don't adopt the new policy now I know that there's a lot of concern about the fact that perhaps this policy has gone too far this regulation has gone too far that perhaps we have to stand up to to the different entities and agencies and I do not begrudge anyone their political views their religious views their public perception their their their
033public um views on any of these issues their political views I do not also pretend that this is the law and this will always be the law we recognize that with elections come changes to our executive branch which the Department of Education is part of the executive branch and we've watched that happen under President Obama then president Trump and President Biden we've seen very big swings in terms of where we've gone with this issue not to mention all of the other issues that that those presidents have dealt with and have changed course on with the each new election and so it is very possible that you will go through this process and comply with the law as it exists on August 1st and adopt that policy and then come January February you may have to
034take a different approach because we may get different direction from the Department of Education but that's how it works that's how the law works we evolve we change with the law and we comply with the law as it exists today and today right now there's a note on the Department of education's website that explains that because of certain federal courts including the district court and Kansas they are not planning to enforce the title 9 regulations in certain States Wisconsin is not one of those States and so right now it is certainly up to you Schoolboard but right now I can tell you that the law requires you to adopt the policy as revised in order to be compliant with the new title 9 regulations that were published in April of this year that go into
035effect on August 1st and until we have a court of competent jurisdiction or a changing course by the Department of Education or congress it is very risky for the district not to proceed with adopting that policy we've talked a lot about in in various groups about what the options are certainly your options are to proceed adopt the policy and then if something changes you do what you've done in the past which is you make a different decision in order to comply with the law your second option is not to proceed is to keep your current policy the way that it is which is not entirely compliant as of August 1 at least that's what we believe is going to be the case but again just to make it clear just because you don't adopt that
036policy just because we just keep things the way that that they are you still have a legal obligation to accommodate transgender and gender non-conforming students in your schools in accordance with the case the decision in Whitaker or the third option and this third option is one that um my partners and I we represent school districts across the state we represent school districts in urban areas and rural areas in conservative areas in Liberal areas in very split areas um but what we are encouraging School boards to do if they are uncomfortable proceeding without option number one which is moving forward in adopting the policy is to adopt the policy with a contingency to essentially adopt the policy and say that we're approving this policy as presented but that we are authorizing the administration to immediately resend
037the policy or modify the policy if a court of competent jurisdiction or the Department of Education takes AC ction to prohibit or modify enforcement I'm going to stop talking now and see if there are any questions was a lot to process thank you very thrill so Jim so I have a question we received I believe all of the board members received an email from a constituent their concern was about athletic participation um I just want to clarify my understanding is we as a district we are subject to rules and regulations with respect to eligibility that are promulgated by the WIA that is correct and and so so this policy if we choose to adopt it the reality is that the WIA will continue to promulgate regulations with respect to student eligibility for for participation and
038that will continue because if we we do not comply in any way with what the WIA requires our students will not be allowed to participate so I guess I guess I'm just trying to clarify in in a certain sense we as a board have no Authority with respect to those eligibility requirements and if we want our students to participate athletically we will follow whatever the wi regulations are you are ABS let me answer that question and then and so that it we clear so number one the Department of Education in the new title 9 regulations that were issued in in April of 2024 explicitly stated that the that there is no reference to Athletics in these new regulations that they intend to come out with new regulations at a later date we don't know when
039that will be and we don't know if it will happen given their historical approach to this it could take a long time in the meantime we have the WIA which you are a member district of that has their own rules relative to eligibility and to the extent that you choose to do something that is contrary to the wi's rules you are jeopardizing your school district's participation and more importantly your students participation in wi sanctioned Athletics the wi based on on a comparison of a lot of other organizations that we work with they put forth rules and they enforce those rules and that is something that I would be absolutely concerned about if it is important to this school board that there students continue to be able and eligible to participate in wi sanctioned Athletics thank
040you Jim my understanding on that waa is they actually Define under their ruling of um what constitutes a gender identity that you have to be under treatment hormonally for at least a year before you can be considered to be allowed to participate in a sport that's not consistent with your biological sex so their rules yeah and then and that is a distinction from at least from the title 9 stuff where there is not a a distinction of you have to spend a year in treatment before you're considered so that you can change it if you're like non-binary you could change your gender hourly almost right so title n does not say anything like that the regulations do not say anything like that they Define it though they do not Define it that's true and certainly
041to the extent that a family were to pursue a claim against a school district for violating the rights under Title 9 the initial discussion and it was clear in Whitaker the initial discussion is the demonstration that the student is in fact a member of that protected class meaning that they are in fact gender transgender or that they identify with a different gender than their biological sex or assigned sex at Birth and so while there is no obligation within the regulations to prove that the same way as as WIA has outlined a definition for how they will treat students based on their gender identity and whether they will consider them to be transgender um I don't see those as as necessarily inconsistent you can read those in Harmony in that you are not necessarily accommodating a
042student who asserts that he or she is transgender and does not do anything in order to live as a different gender to identify as a different gender I can tell you in working in school districts I personally represent about 60 school districts across the state my firm represents about 180 school districts across the state I can't recall a situation where a family came out in favor of or in support of a child who was faking it in order to take advantage of something or who was um asserting a right based on something less than what we would consider to be a true gender identity follow up to that we say that it's not sports but I think that's specifically Sports participation at least what I've read it actually says extracurricular activities is included does that
043in I mean what does that not include Sports then Title 9 does specifically reference curricular and extracurricular activities as areas where you cannot prohib or where you cannot discriminate on the basis of sex where you have an obligation to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex so they're saying it's not sports but yet extracurricular curriculars are sports title N9 applies to sports absolutely but the new regulations do not you know right you not see that as a logical inconsistency there are tons of other regulations okay so just just so we're clear extra cor yeah so let me so but let me answer the question so that I'm I'm being clear title 9 the title 9 regulations are much bigger book there are much many more pages than the pages that we're focusing on right now
044that address this the the the changes that occurred as a result of the 2024 revisions so there are other regulations that address Athletics for example the whole equality and how much we spend and what resources we provide to Athletics based on on sex based on on making sure that all of our students have access to extracurricular activities those regulations weren't touched by these new regulations we're not talking about that at all not because they don't exist anymore and not because they're inconsistent but because they haven't been revised okay Alex yeah where do I start um so one if I not be mistaken Department of Education controls funding for special ad and free and reduced lunch and Esser funds I think was one of those other things and there were a few other there there were
045a number of the so so I think last year we received about $11 million from the feds correct correct aser funding has ended so that's about3 million that so it's about $8 million that we're talking about ish um that doesn't include any litigious things right so I'm talking specifically funding um how much was our referendum 14 million 14 million for this one year correct no it wased over two two years okay um so the Department of Education in the last 40 years has never withheld funding from a district absolutely true AB absolutely true so and we have districts that are non- compliance because there's a list of them that are non- compliance but Department of Education has never withheld funding absolutely true correct absolutely so we are basing a decision I'm just basing decision on
046the Department of Education never withholding funding from a district even when they are not in compliance and with the quantity of litigation that's going on and we also have the the Whitaker case I talked with another lawyer not associated with your organization um who also does educational law and they said the Whitaker case was specifically bathrooms that's what and they represent so the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty is who I talk to okay and they said it was specific to bathrooms and that's it so districts that go further went further on their own valtion not necessarily in accordance with what Whitaker said so when we're talking about Whitaker and you reference Whitaker a multitude of times however Whitaker was Just Bathrooms don't agree with that but I understand lawyers disagree all the timee right
047that's why we have litigations um and so my my question is this so with Department of Education never withholding funding with according to a different organization not yours right so I'm being very clear that's right um that it would occur is specifically bathrooms with what the seventh Court said and their interpretation was bathrooms and they were basing on title seven and not Title Nine was what will said okay that's not true but that's okay um and so my question is what type of likelihoods are we talking sure okay so first thing I just want to make sure that this is clear because I I I'm not sure that this is clear I don't make a decision I'm not making your decision I will never I've been your lawyer for many years I never tell you
048what to do I give you the information that is readily available that we've researched that we've collected and I give you the consequence of your your actions so that you understand what they are so please understand that I am not advocating here I am not speaking from my own personal views I'm giving you information that we've collected as a law firm again presenting to various different school districts across the state who will make different decisions across the state so I just want to make sure that that's clear second of all absolutely true the Department of Education the Department of Public Instruction has never pulled funding Federal funding or state funding based on non-compliance absolutely true in fact I spoke with Bob Butler I didn't speak with him excuse me I spoke with someone who spoke
049with Bob Butler someone from my firm who who talked with Bob Butler who's the attorney for the Wisconsin Association of school boards and he is aware of at least one school district that never adopted the 2020 regulations and they do not have a problem with their F Federal funding absolutely abolutely true and so the question in terms of why would we why would you go ahead and adopt this policy what what is the the purpose what is the likelihood of of having your federal funding pulled it's minimal what is the likelihood of having litigation I I will tell you that it's not it's definitely not minimal it it certainly we are in a situation right now we're in a very litigious Society my guess is is that maybe not your District maybe another District but
050there is going to be a district that doesn't adopt the policy that is going to be sued by a group or groups of individuals who think that they must adopt the policy there are going to be school districts who adopt the policy who are likely to be sued by organizations who think they don't have the right to or shouldn't adopt the policy we are in a situation right now that is the grayest of of areas we've been here before you know Act 10 was a a good uh example of when we've been here before where anything you do comes with some risk of liability but that is up to you to decide as to where your comfort level exists with regard to risk and that's why I've tried to outline for you what I understand
051the law to be that might be different than what our good friends at the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty believe it might be very different than what the American was uh Cil Liberties union says I mean they're they're really we're in a situation right now where people are making arguments and that is what litigation is all about I'll say this again I know I said this at the beginning I wish I could stand here and tell you the US Supreme Court tells us that this is exactly what we need to do and when the US Supreme Court tells us what we need to do that is the law of the land and that is what we follow we don't have that here and so so my hope is is that the information that I've
052shared with you including answering your questions to the best of my ability that you can then make an informed decision about what you the people who have been entrusted to lead the school district in Stevens Point what you need to do to feel comfortable with your actions and the position that you put yourself in and the school district in with adopting the policy not adopting the policy or taking a middle ground approach and then just one followup question so for instance you know student a uh uses the wrong pronouns for someone what's their First Amendment right of freedom of speech versus what is a title n issue that is a really good question so first of all misgendering someone or using the wrong pronouns or using the wrong name if someone it's called Dead naming
053in in some situations um any kind of intentional or inadvertent if it happens once if it happens a couple of times most likely that is going to be dealt with the same ways we deal with everything else in a school environment discipline is teaching discipline is about helping kids understand that their actions may hurt people's feelings that their statements may hurt people's feelings and we try not to hurt people's feelings within the school environment students certainly have First Amendment rights they absolutely have First Amendment rights and those first amendment mment rights are greater actually than our staff memb First Amendment rights when they walk onto school grounds to the extent that someone is speaking in a way that is a matter of their own public concern their their perspective and they're saying something about their
054personal views most of the time that's going to be perfectly fine to the extent that it harms another student to the extent that we use name calling the same way as we would address a situation if someone used the n-word or if someone used another kind of a slur there would be some teaching and then there would be some discipline if it didn't stop but we always and I talked to your administrators periodically when they're struggling with some of those areas where people's rights butt up against each other in many cases we have to tolerate when someone says something that we don't like MH and some cases when it is harmful when it is discriminatory when it rises to the level of harassment severe or pervasive is the term that we're using then the discipline
055is imposed and then it goes and then then it's processed I will tell you that under the new policies as well as the old policies we're using a severe and pervasive or severe and pervas SE severe and pervasive or severe or pervasive standard what that means is if someone uses a term once if someone doesn't use the right pronoun or the person's preferred pronoun that's highly unlikely to result in disciplinary action let alone some severe disciplinary action but certainly we deal with and your administrators can talk to you about the the First Amendment issues that we deal with on a regular basis especially in an election year with students and with staff members Okay g yeah uh I had a question about the three options that you gave us uh one to ratify one to
056not ratify then the third one uh uh I had a question about ratify ratify with contingencies but isn't that option moot because if we vote to ratify things are going to happen in the future and if something happens where uh uh the change is made we're going to have to change anyway so the contingencies really to me are mood they're they're going to happen anyway so I would why would we have three options that's thir the third option is an automatic so it would be rescinded automatically in order to make changes now you react Neola your your policy um company reacts to changes in the law they do a really good job of reacting quickly but it's not not automatic and so if there's some concern about the automatic nature of uh the the third
057option that was why we presented the third option but certainly you have every right as a school board to change your mind yeah so I mean we're going to ask if we make a vote the third option to me kind of muddies the water because it's really moot eventually anyway depending on what happens in the near political future so I mean having three options kind a kind of point of clarification to to G's point so I am I I think the third option makes sense to me and the reason why is we know that there's a preliminary injunction right now we don't know what the ruling is on that injunction if we make a policy and we decide today that we're going to move forward with the policy and then there's a preliminary injunction and
058that changes course what that contingency allows us to do and please confirm if I correct in my understanding is we don't have to hold a special meeting right we don't have to all come together and we will not be out of compliance because the contingencies in place to to protect us until we learn more or there's a ruling that kind of changes direction or course is that am I correct in saying then that that affords you uh immediacy yesh protection yeah yeah I understand what you're saying but in my own mind I'm still saying it'll change right away anyway if it changes if it doesn't change we're all right but if it does change then we must change correct so and you're saying we need a board meeting to do that correct correct another special
059meeting so I agree with G I mean I believe we need to make a decision I mean changes might not happen for another year there could be other board members I mean I don't believe that that we should turn over our decision because this is an important decision that we should turn that over I I believe that that when those changes happen it would behoove us all as a full board whichever whoever is on this board to hear from our attorney again about exactly what it is we need to do to amend our policy and to allow our community to understand how we're amending our policy to bring it in compliance and I appreciate that you that you brought up Act 10 I mean Act 10 is a very very uncomfortable law in our state
060and it has been forever um and this District a number of years ago based on the changes made with Act 10 chose to comply wasn't necessarily well received there were huge questions in this state about whether Act 10 was constitutional or not and clearly it's coming back you know it is coming back but but what this District did was comply with the law at the time um I mean I'm a rule follower I believe it's it's really important for us as a board to to follow the rules I think it's a message that we send to our staff I think it's a a message we send to our kids those if those rules change then it's our responsibility to change with those rules to set politics aside and comply with what the law is telling
061us w w with with with what um we are required to do I mean to me we have a current policy that exists for our district that already substant substantively includes all of this I mean it's existing in our policy in our non-discrimination policy what we're adopting here tonight is no different than the rules that we as a district have chosen to work with kids because at the end of the day our mission is to prepare each student to be successful okay and the reality is that every day I and I I mean I'm going to I'm going to share this you know when when this came up as an issue probably six or seven years ago with respect to bathroom use and and I understand it's a very sensitive issue um I had a
062conversation with our principal at the time John vandorf and John said to me you know what Meg we've been accommodating that for kids for ever for all different reasons we have kids who who are totally stressed in the huge environment of spash who who we allow to use our faculty bathroom I mean we work to make it each child feel at home and comfortable but but we also work to recognize all of our kids and to me um I I just think it's important that we follow the rule tonight that we adopt this policy and if six months from now or a year from now another Administration tells us that we need to adopt a different policy then we have Shaina you come back and you explain it to us and you tell us what
063what we're required to do and I'm not saying you tell us how to vote but you tell us what the law is then then we respect that okay I I'd like to respond so we heard from Shaina there's three options one to proceed as is and approve the policy two to do nothing and wait and three really which is to your point a middle ground of still being compliant in adopting the policy recognizing there's a preliminary injunction where we may hear a ruling as early as this week maybe next week that would change things so in my mind and I am an HR Director at a Fortune 50 company so I am all about compliance but in my mind to me it makes best sense to ensure that we are compliant and that we are
064also being sensitive to some very timely rulings that may impact the decision we're making tonight recognizing that this needs to be in place by August 1st and today is July 16th so to me that that if if we didn't Meg we would if there was a ruling and the injunction did include our district and we approved the policy tonight our our high school well I you I think you sent amended list but I are we are we sure it's only spash that's on the list spash is yeah spash is the only one that's on the list the prior list included just a list of counties okay but the the court had asked for a list of districts and so they supplemented the counties came on Friday the supplemented school district list came on Monday yesterday
065and so spash is the only School listed so should an injunction then come where it's going to impact spash Meg I'm just saying should it come well then we would have to hold another special meeting ensure that we have a quorum to do so and we would not be compliant actually I'm going to I'm going to and you can correct me if I'm wrong we would be enjoined from enforcement pending ultimate decision by the court because all that is happened right now is there's a preliminary AR injunction so so what what would happen is if we adop can we let sha share what would happen thank you so it depends on what the District Court's order actually says if the if the order specifically enjoins the school district from adopting the policy then certainly we
066would have to be in compliance I will tell you and you know we we talked about this this issue um as it related to all the schools in your District I mean you'd have to perhaps make it a decision as to whether you're comfortable with spash being excluded and the other schools being subjected um to the policy that's a question that we haven't tackled Jim must be before me one two three I think yeah yeah are you saying then too is that and I I think the list is probably not complete because I know there are a lot know there of people in our district but it may have been what was submitted I agree and part of that reason has to do with I think the moms for Liberty site is not particularly well
067set up because it's not meant to be District by District it's not meant to be it's like counties it's like a National Organization they have nothing in their infrastructure that prepared them for this sort of short notice though you got to get every single school and they asked I think they've asked for more time to truly give you the list of all the different specific schools and I think they meant it it should be a SCH a school district I think the only one on there that you're talking about is just the yaf student that you're saying Stevens Point Senor Area Senior High is just the no I'm I'm you haven't gotten a list for them I well the list isn't submitted to me it's submitted to the court you haven't seen it no no
068no no okay so just we're clear on what we're talking about the Court established a responsibility that this the two organizations needed to submit the the list of schools where their their members children attended and so they complied on Friday they submitted a list of counties on Monday they submitted a list of schools I don't know if if they're going to be given more time I don't know if the interlocutory appeal to the 10th circuit is going to usurp that I don't know what is going to happen at this point the only school that is identified specifically related to your district is spash there are other schools within the the state of Wisconsin that have been identified both public and private schools and so we'll see what happens with them I know there are oh
069I'm not disagreeing with you that there are members that have actually tabled this no I I'm not disagreeing with you there are a lot of school districts where moms for Liberty have submitted letters that indicate that they that I am a member of moms for Liberty and my child attends school here we absolutely have seen that across the state do you have any comment on the Texas case the Carol Carol uh Independent School District where the judge has said um um he's got given people till the 19th to submit their briefs and he is expecting to he's he's indicating that he's going to um uh put out a nationwide injunction on on this so you know have you read that are you looking at that you yeah we're definitely looking at all comment on that
070the comment is that that we're not sure what the jurisdiction is that he would have in order to do that certainly in Texas the Texas district courts have have um done that before and we've never had that litigated beyond the Texas Court there is no court of appeals there is no US Supreme Court case that says that an individual District Court can issue a nationwide um injunction I will tell you we dealt with that issue in um in uh Act 10 here in Wisconsin when a Dayne County judge issued a decision and the question was whether a DNE County Judge could enjoin a state law for the entire State and that was something we debated at that point funny enough it's 2024 we've been a country for years many many years we have not had
071a case that has specifically addressed that issue maybe it's time I saw data that said that put out what said there's been 96 such occurrences where a district court judge has pulled out an Nationwide injunction since 2001 I'm not aware of that data that you're refering to had 60 some yeah I'm not aware of the data that you're referring to I'm not saying it's wrong I'm telling you I'm not aware of the data that you're referring to the Hawaii the district cour out in Hawai put a stop to the wall from Hawaii that's out of my knowledge base I'm not going isn't something that's happened 96 times okay okay so we have two well I don't know if it's will or G and then okay all right well let go in order so yeah I
072would I think I'd be more comfortable having the board personally revisit this as opposed to an automatic thing cuz my assumption is that if there are more decisions handed down they might enjoin the whole regulation they might enjoy part of the regulation they could issue our district court could say something our court of appeals could say something like there's so many uncertainties and we have a meeting in two two-ish weeks anyway would prefer if we have the ability to revisit this personally that would make me feel more comfortable because there might be more guidance probably will be more guidance in a few weeks that's my opinion and regardless we would still have the ability to revisit you have to be by August 1 right this has that's when the regulations go into effect y so
073regardless of option two or three we would still have the ability to revisit it would just ensure that we're in compliance given whatever that ruling is until we rev visited go ahead thank you g um I think that the contingency is redundant that this board is responsible enough to come back on short notice to address any new issue I think that we just go for the vote and the contingency if something changes if and when it changes we can meet and discuss it and be up to dat on what we're actually talking about uh I I'm asking that that we do two options three will muddy the waters and we might have a three-way bolt which would be kind of different my feeling is one and three are one and the same and as Ted
074said we could come back quickly or we could just say make the third option and the second option the vote because I I really feel three is the same as one because we're going to have to comply anyway now if your if your reason is IM mediacy you know uh okay I I I'm fine with that but I really think they're just the same thing and and I'm ready to to call the question uh unless somebody has some burning thing they need to say I think Jim did you have something I want to know a question on because this comes with substantial amount of training that has to be done what are our costs on that our firm is offering that training on a complimentary basis to our client yeah thank you uh well I'm
075going to call the question then with those two options CU I don't know how to vote on three options so I want to address so what what we're going to ask the board to do is take action on on two different things the first is some edits which you all saw in your board docs to our existing policy because if we were to get complaints that happened prior to August 1 we would have to um process those with the old policy any complaints that come forward after August 1st the second action would be to adopt the new policy um in compliance with the new regulations either way I'm making the recommendation that we take action on this either um approve it as is or I also like the contingency because I like the immediacy if
076something is ordered that we will be in compliant the minute that that happens well how do we vote then you vote however you want so we would say option one option two or option three no someone makes a motion it can be to adopt policy um 2266 with the edits we could take a vote on it or um the second is the new policy and that would be with the contingencies what about the third that is the third there's only two action items oh I see what you're saying option two would be to do nothing okay so option one so I'm calling the question is that right so just so it's clear we're I am not yeah I am not suggesting that you take the three options and everyone vote for one of the three
077options as Corey just mentioned this is no different than any other time where you take action you someone makes a motion to do something if it gets a second then you vote on it it so so there's no confusion because you're absolutely right there if if you were to try to have everyone take action on one of the options that would be very confusing did you have I just care how this the rule the new rules or whatever and what our current policy is and how it would address like what happened in Sun Prairie the sun prair I called to question we have to vote on that well someone needs to make a motion yeah there has been no motion to call to question Okay so make a motion for one of the to to
078make a motion to approve but don't we have to vote on ending the discussion yeah point of order so he did make ation call question we do an immediate votee on whether we want to continue or not so I made the motion to do that requires a 2/3 vote it what now we closer you have to have two3 vote two-third vote right car so I make a motion but we have to have a second I'm I'm I'm sorry whatever I make motion disc close the close debate okay I'd second that so dooll do you have that you roll call vote yeah sure okay me get clean sheet okay so we will do start with Mr Pope yes Mr Kowski yes Mr Summers no Miss Porton yes Mr leac no Mr Shader I miss Zer yes
079M Robbie's Excuse miss Bushman no five to three two3 two two not two fails so I'm going to ask a question is any body going to say anything more tonight that's going to change anybody's mind because if if not we're we're at the point I think where we're just talking to hear ourselves talk so so just to just a recap um so it it sounds we keep talking about the three options right option one proceed and approve as is option two do nothing option three is that contingency which is the middle ground um we heard Corey's point that she does prefer that third option um I do feel like I know you think it's it's no I'm fine with that but then that takes a place of option one right correct so we have two
080option I hear what you're saying whoever makes a Motion makes the motion that they want and if you want to know what my recommendation would be it would be either to take the exact verbiage that Shaya said or motion to adopt policy 2264 contingent upon the court not osing the potential injunction on the district and that's for the second action item that's not 2266 2266 can we handle the first one sure first I would like I just want to point a clarification so so if this court imposes that does that necessarily mean that they have the authority to do so and and that we are required to comply with it it's a court in Kansas we are a court in Wisconsin we are covered by our district court Wisconsin court system and so for me
081I I just I'm struggling with why we in the state of Wisconsin as a school board are going to default to a ruling in Kansas that may or may not have any jurisdiction over us for for me that's why I think we should we should pass the rule the way it is and if that occurs then we should have because what's going to happen is then you're going to be interpreting this your Law Firm is going to be interpreting this for all of the other Wisconsin schools who are you are representing and and then you're going to have the ability to come back to us and provide us with your best legal advice and for me that's the res I just feel like that's the responsible thing to do to to hear what you say
082and what I heard you say tonight is you know that that that that this is something that is currently law and that we're required to comply and that it may change but by the end of the week or next week potentially well or or maybe 6 months from now or a year from now absolutely or maybe not right you know I mean what happens if what happens if a a you know a a month from now a court in Oregon or a court in Texas says one of our policies isn't legal I mean are we G to like like change it I don't think so I mean I hope not I I hope what we do as a board is we listen to advice and we pass a policy I think that's what we're doing
083tonight but if it changes we have our attorney come back and we adop so we can vote on that so I think we keep repeating ourselves so is there anything new that anyone would like to share is there a motion on the on the table K Barb I would like to move to approve amendments to board policy 226 66 non-discrimination on the basis of sex and education programs or activities as presented second okay roll call vote please oh well sorry discussion discussion um one question this is for using prior to August 1st correct not the post August 1st correct I just just qualifying that item 6B it's the um any other questions or prior to August one um changes MH okay roll call vote please miss pson yes Miss Zer yes Mr Kowalski yes Mr
084Summers yes Mr leac no Mr Shader I Mr Pope yes m m Bushman yes and motion carries okay so then we move to we move to C uh 6 C and this is a new policy 2064 non-discrimination on the basis of sex and education programs or activities can I make a motion to vote sure to I to approve as to approve approve as presented I will second that motion uh based on our third option option oh so per the my feeling is one and three are the same but I'm willing to stipulate that the contingency vote that's fine so that would be a motion to adopt policy 2064 contingent upon the court not imposing the potential injunction on the district I'm going to withdraw my second okay so that's a motion made by G is
085there a second right okay I will make a motion to approve option one to approve and do we have to the policy chain is amended we have to so you can just say his motion failed or second okay he what you're going to I'm going to make a motion to approve the policy as presented option one no contingency and for our board to revisit the policy if um we are required to if our we are provided with legal guidance that we are required to do so a second okay discussion I I I just I just think this is ironic that we talk about ensuring that we're fully compliant at all times and not having the contingency puts us in at least I mean we can't say for how long right but there's that immediacy factor
086and so I am not supportive but I can respect your comments on that but I think we're responsive enough where we can come back and address it quickly we could address it in the August meeting if we need to with days of non-comp sence I'm just saying that's the irony there okay any any other comments and we can't omit just the part about sexual identity sure if you wanted to make a friendly Amendment the person who made the motion and the person who seconded would have to agree to that but you certainly can offer a friendly amendment I don't know if it to the motion to the motion motion to next motion any other comments or questions okay hearing none roll call vote please miss erer yes Mr Pope yes Miss pson yes Mr Shader
087I Mr Summers no Mr leac no Mr Kowalski yes Miss Bushman no and motion carries 53 thank you we will thank you sha thank you sha appreciate it drive safe safe travels safe travels thank you no storms on the way home no storms okay moving on to agenda item 7A purchase approval for new Chromebooks we have uh ran Casey up here good evening uh I have a fairly straightforward matter to present to you tonight and uh that is uh the purchase of over 1100 Chromebooks for our students um I'm here because uh the amount amount of the purchase uh is requires board approval uh the funds are already budgeted for uh this is not a new expenditure uh this is a continuation of our plan for replacing Chromebooks it it diverges slightly from what we've
088done in the past because in we used to uh lease large amounts of equipment uh we we lease four or 5,000 Chromebooks at a time and pay them off over four or five years what we want to shift to now is buying Chromebooks every single year uh about 1,00 and what that allows us to do is to be a little bit more Nimble when it comes to changes in devices so we're not committed to a device for five years five years is very old when it comes to a piece of technology if a change were to happen within two years we could pivot to a new de device or start getting that into the pipeline pretty soon uh we went through the uh board required uh procedures of uh issuing an RFP and we did
089that to all of our known vendors that we've worked for with in the past and also some new vendors uh got the information on Chromebooks from them and on the basis of that we're recommending the uh vendor traera we've worked with them in the past they had the best value and when I say value it's not just the cost of the device it's also the warranty and in this particular case a 5-year accidental damage protection warranty which allows us to run that device for 5 years so we we found that to be the best value for the district uh and that's we're recommending at a cost of $554 per device uh and that amount would be I think I have it on here did you say 554 I'm sorry 4 44 correct excuse me okay
090um that would be a total of $499 uh 400 uh for the purchase this year next year we probably would be back with a similar recommendation um depending on on what happens with devices and vendors I I will gladly answer any questions you might have how long do you anticipate making another purchase like this well we would do it every year this so instead of like coming to you every every three or four years or five years and saying we need $ 1.2 or $2 million we're saying we have this in our budget and this is what we're going to spend every year every year we will have approximately half a million dollars allocated to spend on replacing Chromebooks thank you Jim um I remember when I talked to you I can't remember all the
091specifics when I met met with you in on boarding you said we use the Chromebooks specifically because of their limitations actually for security reasons is that right uh they are definitely easier to lock down and manage as opposed to a Windows device or a fully functional laptop is are kids allowed to use their own ever their own laptop if they have their own do you allow that um or is there a security reason not to no they they are allowed to it's just very difficult they they they don't have the access to the same Wi-Fi it's the guest Wi-Fi they don't have printing we can't support that at all so if they can't get something to work we we can't support a private device we're not going to go on there and try and troubleshoot
092so it is the recommended option that every student bring their Chromebook uh that we allowed to work on that we can support them for whatever educational program they're trying to access other questions I will a motion to approve the purchase of 1100 Chromebooks from the technology budget for the cost of $499,450 um 8 a sorry uh future meetings dates and times we have our next Schoolboard meeting our regular Schoolboard meeting on August 12th and then another regular school board meeting on September 9th just a reminder for everyone committee meetings the ed services committee meets the first Monday of the month at 5:30 p.m. in business and HR meets the first Monday of the month at 6:30 p.m. and regarding agenda item 9A I'm looking for a motion to adjourn good question sure um ed services
093in September I didn't I I think I got an email on that but I don't remember it's GNA be the Tuesday on the Tuesday instead of correct just want to make sure I read that right and got clarification here 530 yeah not not show up the wrong time too School Board is at 63 six so 6:00 p.m School Board 5:30 at Services 6:30 Business Services okay and you all have a revised invite for that at services for the correct time all right so with that I am looking for a motion to adjourn I'll be fishing so moved second second okay all in favor I oppos hey motion carries have a good evening thanks everyone have a good evening thank you thank you you're wel really do that professionally