001call the meeting to order. This is a special meeting of the Yellow Springs uh school district board. Um we're calling this meeting to address the issue on the agenda and Jay, can you do roll call? Bailey here. Okay, here Magnus here. Otter here. We have a quorum. Okay. Um, so the first and only uh item for business is to review uh the resolution directing the superintendent to certify the district's compliance with federal anti-discrimination requirements. I want to give everyone a chance to look at this document. Um it has been under legal our legal council review uh for several days now. Um there's been a lot of back and forth. the national conversation I guess you events uh have been impacting this state decisions and events both in the legal side of things as well as
002in the in the administrative side have impacted this. Uh so take a moment what you have in front of you is something that was uh recently edited or amended. Uh there were if you recall the first draft v version that came before the board there were a series of whereas clauses that considered or addressed some of the content of the federal dear colleague letter. I spoke with our legal counsel and we agreed that there is no need uh for this resolution to acknowledge in any way any of the stipulations in that dear colleague letter. Um and so we removed all of those stipulations. So, this is simply stating that we as we have always been um subject to title six of the Civil Rights Act and that we have consulted our legal counsel to review
003our programs, activities, and policies and administrative guidelines to ensure compliance with the district's federal anti-de discrimination obligations. as we always have. And finally, that we are directing the superintendent, therefore taking on the responsibility for this decision to execute the certification in compliance with the district's continuing anti-discrimination obligations and tender said certification to the DEW. Okay. So th that is uh those are the conditions. uh set up uh to uh propose directing the superintendent to execute certification. Um and then please read sections 1 2 3 4 and five. Uh you'll notice from an earlier draft after consultation with the attorney that an objection has been in included section two to object to the aforementioned certification requirements as dictated by the federal and state uh governments. Um and the reasons for that objection are given. And also
004section three uh that we have already affirmed in many occasions that we comply with title six and will continue to do so. Um and section 4 that this resolution does not wave any rights of this board to enforce the certification or of the board's past, present or continuing receipt of federal funds. uh the case that is cited in the certification being signed SS SFFA versus Harvard has no standing when it comes to K through2 schools and related legal requirements. Uh and this and that we as a board will continue to follow Title Six as the law dictates and as we have interpreted that law. Um and finally that this is an open meeting and we're having an open discussion. Okay. So please just take some time to look that over and then I would like
005to have an open discussion since according to sunshine laws as you all know uh we cannot deliberate and should not deliberate until we are all together and so we'll offer plenty of time to have an open deliberation. Oh, can I ask just a clarification about section 4? So, I understand the second part that says that the case does not apply to K through2, the case that was cited, but um why do we need to um reiterate that we're not waving any rights? I guess I need you to take that. Go ahead. Um my reading of that after multiple discussions today is that we are not waving any rights including the right that the board that this board has should it so desire to litigate on our behalf any issues that arise from this. Okay. So
006if the if the state or federal government compel us to discriminate, we will litigate. Okay. I'm glad I'm glad to know that I'm glad to hear that if a board certifies or direct the superintendent to certify uh are standing regarding title six then we are still keeping the door open to litigating for any other reach of uh government in there. Okay, that's what section 4 is about. Steve, is there extra here? You take this one. Yeah, these are extra. Okay. So, just to make sure that I'm understanding, I'm just going to repeat what I understand here. Okay. So, we have been complying with title six all along. We we are not we don't have procedures or policies that allow us to discriminate. and we haven't been discriminating and we're not discriminating now. Correct. So certifying
007title six is just saying that we object to having to uh we object that we have to say that but we're not uh discriminating against we object to this process to the process but we confirm that we are following title six. Terry you can talk about how often you've done this certification at least. We have a The system that we use, we called the CCIP. So when we get our funding each year, our federal funding and our state funding, but our federal funding, we get CCIP, you know, we say, "Okay, the money's dropped. First stop is Donna. So it's title one, it's title two, it's title 4, it's IDA." So she allocates, there's a whole process. She has to allocate the budget. She does that. says, "I'm finished with this." Sends it to Jay electronically
008as the fiscal officer. He reviews it. He approves it. Then, um, he sends it on through the system and it comes to me as the final signer. So, anytime I do that, I have a page long list of things that I have to click certify. I click a box saying that I certify anytime I do anything. in the anytime I do any approval in the CCIP. So, this is really duplicative of what we already do. Okay? It's overreach and it's duplicative. And I and I think um that's part of what this resolution says. Do you have any questions or so has everyone had a chance to review it? Um it's it's actually shorter than the draft you got so should be fine. Okay. Um so we can uh open up for discussion. I also want
009to however anticipate after this discussion or maybe concominant to it. I talked with our legal counsel um with regards to a discussion of adding a section that would more clarif clarify the board's concern that at least the language in the dear colleague letter could be seen as uh compelling a school district to violate their own mission, their own policies. and the constitution. Um, and so he said, well, the best way to articulate where we stand in terms of anti-discrimination and uh, viewing that the dear colleague letter proposes a path forward that will will enable discrimination. um that we make a statement to articulate that stand. And uh so I I would ask that we collectively come up with a statement uh to reflect how we jointly uh position ourselves in relation to that dear colleague
010letter so that we can move forward with clarity on on what our next steps would be. if a future directive from the any level of government was attempting to coers our district to act against civil rights. Um so so that's part of our discussion today too. Does that make sense Terry? Okay. Um so before us is an approval of this resolution. Um does anyone have any thoughts? And uh I also want to give our our our community member a chance to um do you want to we can't it's not um because we didn't specify that we could have community comments. The meeting is a special meeting. Correct. Correct. Right. So, um I'm just concerned that it's not an equitable access to input here. Um well maybe to the but maybe when we discuss the statement
011that the board wants to put out is there a way to are it it's not on the agenda that community comments were and and specifically I think it's the the line for special meetings like this is generally this can be no community comments. Okay. So um I have a I have a question though. Are we expecting to come out of here with a statement or are we We don't have to. We can decide on So then that gives us the opportunity to open the community members to write to us about this. Um I just and I just want to make sure we motion to open the discussion. I don't think we did that. I always forget that. Okay. Yes. Okay. So um special meetings I I I do believe that it is important specifically on
012a decision like that that we follow protocol and though I I think um so we will uh not have community comments. We will however postpone a final version. Perhaps we bring it up at our next board meeting. Opening up the possibility for community members to uh dialogue with the district. Okay. Um so, but we need to we need we need to we need a motion. So, I move that we approve a resolution directing the superintendent to certify the district's compliance with federal anti-discrimination requirements. Second. Okay. Any discussions? Well, that's okay. It's essentially the language um written here which would include section one two. Oh, you just read the title 2 from 2.1 the agenda. Yeah. Okay. So, it's been moved and seconded to adopt this resolution. Any Amy, did you want to say something? No,
013go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah. Well, can you Terry just Dr. Holden, sorry. Um, explain if we do not certify this. Yeah, I think I think maybe I can lay some context. Yeah. Um, because some of the context was in the first version of the resolution. So, you know, because we had a work session about it, every district in the country received a dear colleague letter from the US Department of Education on February 14th. Um, so that laid out the current administration's stance on DEI. Um, last week, so probably April 7, I was at one of my regular update meetings and there was a representative from the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce who said, um, and these are regional update meetings. So, I just happened to be in one of the later ones than an
014earlier one. And so, folks who had attended prior to the meeting I was in didn't even know this, but um, they that was Monday, April 7th. Um she communicated and this was Jessica Voltini who is the chief of staff for uh the Ohio Department of Education. She communicated that the feds had directed all state agencies. So, the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce to require all local agencies to sign a certification saying that they did not uh discriminate or in other words, they followed the requirements in title six or any current, future, and perhaps past federal funds would be pulled. So, I will tell you that the superintendents in the room were like, "Wait a minute. What did you just say?" And that day, that was when the first date we had was April 10th.
015I'm like, "Time out here, people. This is April 7th. You want this done by April 10th." I said, "I have to talk to my board. This is this is a problematic." By the time I got back to the office that day, the Department of Education and Workforce pushed the date to today, April 18th, 11:59 p.m. Now, I will say that in in the interim, the feds push their required date to April 24th. So many states are not doing this until April 24th. Okay? Because and this was all brought about by litigation. So the feds said we won't pull any money. We won't do anything until April 24th or after the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce in an email. Um what's today? Maybe the beginning of this week, end of last week, probably the beginning
016of this week said it was on last Friday, April 11th. Uh, here's all of the changes from the feds. Our date is still April 18th at 11:59 p.m. Why they are a week early, I I don't know. But um, so what I did with our team internally was looked at everything we had. uh sent all of that to and by everything I had, our policies, our website, sent it all to legal to legal council because in a word, we do not discriminate period. Uh the the district has had a broad anti-discrimination mission um philosophy. Uh in fact, that's what drew me here. So um once we went through this um we felt pretty confident that again I tell you that I have to certify this with everything but even with with everything that we had
017out there we we felt pretty confident that we don't discriminate. Um I think a lot of this is a language battle. It's a language battle with the federal government about certain terms that have become uh misunderstood, misused, hot button items. Um but I I feel let me just say at the outset, I don't want to do the certification because I think it's overreach. Yeah. But I I want you to hear from me that my signing the certification does not cause me to question things because the at the heart of the certification is that do we discriminate based upon title six? And the short answer to that is no, we do not. Right? My concern and and I'm glad that the board is doing the resolution directing me to do this. I'm glad that the board
018is doing the resolution that doesn't um give away our right to litigate. is that if we follow um the parallels that have been coming from the federal government, there's going to be something else. And so the deeper we get into that, I think that is when we may and it and it may not happen. Let me just say that. But should it? I think that's when we get into much um more important discussions that um about how these requests that are being or not request requirements that are being forced on us intersect with our values. And and the danger in not certifying um is that our current federal funds could be pulled. our future of federal funds could be pulled and they could do um what our legal council calls as a as a crawl
019back. They could crawl back to years past and say, "Nope, we're taking this money and this money." And and I think in a district like ours, um that that would be hard. Um, so I think for this certification, and this is the only one I'm talking about, do we follow Title Six? And that's an absolute yes, we do. And so, um, I can certify this if I could because I I also was, you know, I believe that to not certify would be the preferred position. However, I do see that this resolution narrowly defines the certification to only pertain to following Title Six. So that as soon as any action happens from the state or federal governments that compel us to act in a way that is discriminatory, such as, you know, I I Dr. Holden
020mentioned how this might impact scholarships that are currently offered to our students to you encourage under reppresented populations to go into certain areas like girls in science, right? Um women of color and higher education, you know, all all of these these areas. If we are being directed to discriminate against those groups, then we have a reason to litigate. If we are being directed to change any of our curriculum, we have a reason to litigate. Uh as soon as there is an action that we are essentially being um compelled unjustly to take through the threat of removal of funding. uh that would be the time for us to step in. May I you you mentioned scholarships. So I wanna I want to clarify something. Scholarships are actually spelled out in the requirements that we not give
021scholarships to um certain groups. Uh we don't we don't we don't uh administer our own scholarships. Um other organizations administer scholarships. Um so that is something we looked at. I think when you are talking about curriculum that is my that is my worry. Um you know we don't all of our clubs all of our athletics all of our clubs are open to everybody. So for example our gay straight alliance does that mean you have to be a gay student to be a member? No. Our United Student Society does that mean you have to be a student of color to be a member? No. never has been a requirement, never will be a requirement. And those are the type of um kind of anti-discrimination pieces they are looking at in our operations. And I can can
022absolutely say we do not discriminate in any of those things. So they're not saying we can't have those programs. They're saying we can't discriminate the people that we accept into them at this point in time. Right. They are saying, right? Right. Okay. the groups have to be open, right? But the language of this resolution, if I'm understanding, allows us to get ready for to push back if they were preventing the existence of any of those groups. Correct. Yeah. I I read through Harvard's letter to the federal government and, you know, they um they're citing first amendment violations and privacy violations. Um those are the side type of things that I think that would raise alarm bells right and there's an action the government was threatening an action against Harvard so that makes sense and harvard
023being a higher education institutions of the higher education that is not under the same regulations and we're in K through 12 right which I appreciate that this resolution pointed that out is that um there's a citation of a higher education case that doesn't pertain to K through 12. Mhm. You know, that's part of the confusion that, you know, this dear colleague letter and subsequent communications have caused. I had a question and it just so give me just a minute or someone else go first. Do you have any Amy any questions or thoughts? Well, um, you know, it I regret that we didn't give uh a chance for people to make comment on this because it I mean, as as you know, it made the paper today, too. Um, I made sure I took the time
024to read through um the news the Yellow Springs newspaper article and editorial in fact on this very issue. Um so uh because I do want to encourage a discussion within the village and with people on this and hope that we will um make effort to you know if as we schedule board work again to have some thought into statements that we want to make as a district and have the board lead that action. So, so that I think could happen at our next regular board meeting. It could be an agenda and we could be open to community comments. What other other ways could we get that community impact with regards to a statement? Well, I I think the community can always weigh in submit communication to the board. Um the only thing I would say
025is um I I just want to provide a caution. There are very real consequences. We see them right now and I can just imagine what they are as we go further down the line. Um, and I think sometimes, um, folks in the community don't understand necessarily the very real consequences that are faced. Um, because in the end, whether it's Yellow Springs or any other district, and I won't name the districts that have chosen not to certify, um, but we have to think about what are our own very real consequences. Um, and And maybe this is a this is a personal reflection for all of us simply in the times in which we are living. What what are we willing to absorb? What can we absorb? Um but just for I think our community doesn't always
026know what our federal programs provide. And so you know it's easy we we know I can type up a piece of paper and tell you exactly what our federal programs provide. That would be I think a good part of that. But a but a concern again is it I can tell you what this year but and what in the future we might think but again remember there's a there's a crawl back and then there's a potential again we live in Ohio so there's the potential of you know parallels will it happen? I don't know but but what's the parallel if this um starts coming this restriction starts coming um and state money is attached to it um and and I think districts smaller districts bigger districts we all know this and it's causing all of
027us to really think about um um what we believe and what we can do and and and whether a district I I would caution and everyone whether a district certifies or doesn't certify. Please do not attach a a value judgment to that. You are a good district if you stood up and did not certify and you were a bad district if you did certify because in the end these are services to kids. These are real impacts on staffing, real impacts on community. Um, so I just want to make sure everybody is aware and and to to add to what you say, but federal grants in particular, they help us uh provide free and reduced price lunch and school meals to students that qualify, but they also help fund uh special education programs and staff, reading,
028tutoring, reading, tutoring. So, we're talking about service, we're talking about the students that are, you know, some of the most vulnerable um in our district. And so the way that I look at it is that if we do not certify, we are risking the loss of those current fundings that are uh lifting up students that are the most at risk and we would do it on principle because in reality we already comply to title six. Correct. So then that's um what's the cost? is that the right moment and is at the right place to uh to flex our attachment to principle and what I'm hearing is that they might be the next steps will be the better moment for this right especially if we set that up in a way that says we are committed
029to uh uh to title six of the civil rights act of 1964 and we're already complying to that but should there be any further overreach and uh and dismantlement of what our district's mission is regarding the values of his community. This is where we would act and that's the part that actually I'm interested in discussing more. Yes. Yeah. Yes. And and I think that's exactly where we stand. uh that this is a this is a narrow definition. Uh reasserting how we are certifying following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as we have done continually uh each year with regards to any federal grant or monies that are received. And it is absolutely true that the initial impact on this from the federal government would hit our most vulnerable students. Um, however, I think we're all
030in solidarity with this the districts that have chosen not to certify as well as in solidarity with the districts who have um and understand that uh they need to make the decisions like we do uh finding the best strategy forward for their different districts. I think our district is very well positioned um to in a unifi with a unified voice uh speak out against any injustice that would be uh that we would be asked to do uh from the federal or state governments in uh their implementation of that of the of of this uh conditions set in that dear colleague letter. And uh so this is drawing a line but it's also putting the the the next action on them and it would be that action that we would then sue rather than they retali
031you know punishing us for us our action which in this case is a failure to act. Does that make sense? Um so uh that's that's the position that's being proposed here. So um you Dr. Holden and Miss Winston, you're both representing the present and future of this district. I think we we heard from you that your recommendation is to certify for all the reasons that we have outlined here. What are your recommendations, Miss Winston? Um, I would say that I um I hear everything that has been said today and I understand and I agree. Um I think all of us if we just were approaching this with our own um personal values and lived experiences and our morals um we would say yes we don't want to certify because I truly believe this is an
032attempt um to cause distractions for one side and division and division and I believe it's also an attempt to make people believe that um something is happening that is not because we are legally bound to title six and we always certify that you know we are not discriminating. So this very public um call out yes this very this very public and now you know talked about so much it's causing distractions and that's what they want to happen. Um, again, if I was speaking personally, I would say no, don't certify. I am proud and support the districts that that are not. Um, but all districts are so unique. We are small. We are in southwest Ohio. Those districts that are not certifying, they have a larger war chest, right? They have other larger urban districts. They
033have more numbers. they have more they have more um financial means that they can combine together and litigate it now if they have to. We as a community in Yellow Springs know our morals, know our our values. We know we are not discriminating. Um, so I think here it is it is okay to certify and then down the road if something comes up then we will probably have other districts that will come and be a part of kind of our war chest and fight with us if it's necessary. But ultimately, I think this is an this is their way of causing distractions and distractions away from what we really should be focusing on, and that is our children. And I agree with Terry, if they were to pull our federal funds, we are talking about
034resources for children in our community that need them. And we are also talking about positions who are filled by people who need them and who have family responsibilities. We do not discriminate. We can certify and we can feel comfortable with that and we can feel comfortable knowing that our community and other districts who are not certifying now will back us moving forward if they ask us to discriminate. Thank you. Okay. This is very reassuring I think just to feel that I I feel the unity and I see the vision here uh which is a relief in this time of uncertainty and chaos out there. Um are there any efforts right now that are being done to identify potential partners for can speak to that? Yes, but I don't want to speak about that publicly. I
035understand. I just want to make sure that there are some networking being done uh at that point. And I guess my perspective here is that to prepare for the worst and hope for the best and and stay in that and I I think in any statement um we can move well I'll ask the board well I'll finish my sentence. in any statement that we construct uh it to address Miss Winston's comments to consider that voice of solidarity with other districts could be or perhaps should be a part of that statement. So I'd say we capture that. Are we ready to vote on the resolution and then speak about uh the process of drafting a statement to also address uh board member Magnus' uh you know concern request of of giving community members a chance to
036uh provide input. Um so we don't have we didn't have that on the agenda to draft a statement. So I would recommend that we do that at a later board meeting. It is under the same It doesn't fall under the same uh topic of we I think we can do it as a topic then we won't vote on the resolution until after our discussion about the statement because they are related. Appreciate that. Um because I feel like that's just some guiding thoughts. Yes. Sorry you didn't mean to interrupt. No, absolutely. So let's consider what we would be drafting. I'd love to have captured a lot of what you said just for we have it recorded. So, but that's yeah that's I I feel like um so we have um uh statements from Dr. Holden and
037from um Miss Winston um that I think would be really good to capture within that statement. Yeah, there were some some key words that I uh took down that that maybe should be mating is the idea that uh that there is a federal overreach and uh duplicative and I don't know if it will apply to the next move but definitely the overreach into our ability to shape our school district to the values of a community and that just doing that is taking away representation from uh our voters and then I think Miss Winston talked about uh just the overall attempt to cause destruction and division and also um that we are united in in our solidarity with all of the other district regardless of how they um they respond and they strategize around this specific
038request. Is there a paper from today? There was a word at the end of Megan's editorial that I thought was good too. The idea that it's in her editorial. So So I think also um something to pull out from section uh from the resolution. Well, that we should spin up that we object we object to the process. We object to the process. Uh we object to their definition of anti-discrimination. Yeah. Which has no basis in law. Title six compliance certification and mandate by the way that undermines your autonomy as state leaders. Is that Yeah. Yeah. Um so that undermines your autonomy as state leaders. Yeah. state and then the last part should be I think about our desire to find other district to partner with us as part of the solidarity or a special a
039separate point. I think it should be the last one that we we invite other school district that are also feeling that their um mission is undermined to uh to unite with us to unite with us. Yeah. Um and then clear language that uh we will pursue our right. What was it in this section? But we do, it says that we do not wave any rights. Right. I think what I'm trying to get um get at is a statement that we will defend our right to and and mission to provide education to all students which includes um we all know in education every student comes with a certain set of of well a certain back you know a unique background a unique set of needs a a unique set of strengths Um, we know that kids
040who are hungry do not learn as effectively as kids who can get a meal. Mhm. We know that there are indeed disparities between groups of children based on a variety of socioeconomic conditions. Uh, we know that uh our our culture um has is a culture of implicit racism. um that gender identities impact the the um learning of different students in different ways and it is our obligation as educators to attempt to educate all of those students as best as we are able. So any overreach by the federal government that compromises that educational mission must be resisted. Simply we we must defend our district. We must defend our teachers and our administrators from any attempt to compromise our educational mission. Um I guess uh well I guess it's captured. Yes. So I think that and and
041mission to provide education all students and this will not be compromised. Okay. Are there any other points that um the only thing I can maybe think of is just to specify who who would be most impacted by this if the federal money was taken away. Um because I think that's important to point out that you know it's clear that they're going after a certain um in the graphic. Okay. They're going after children. Yeah. In the end, this is an adult fight that damages children. They're politicizing children. Um there is a supposed to be a court ruling today that has not happened yet out of the US District Court of New Hampshire. Um that I thought might impact this, but there's been no ruling yet. Is that the Yes. and and the judge there part of
042her request of the Trump administration has been to define particularly in this dear colleague letter you say DEI but define it and I think yesterday the attorney um the US Department of Justice attorney said the judge noted the federal government has given schools conflicting guidance on what the ban would cover um when she asked for specific examples of what kind of activities could run a foul of prohibitions. US Department of Justice attorney said it would be impossible to identify all the scenarios. So I think part of the legal argument is that you you are not you just saying this thing without defining it. Yeah. And so it it opens everything up. And I think you know that and the legal argument that the dear colleague is based on an affirmative action case with Harvard that
043has bearing on higher ed but no bearing on K12 environments. Yeah. Okay. So, we have a a good list to start here. Uh then I I want to make sure that we act, you know, we act on it. Um who would next steps maximum of two board members can work together on a draft. We've done that before. Okay. It's up. I mean, your workload is higher now, so it's up to you. Yeah. And that's okay. I'm happy to pass it on. Do you want to do it? Okay. Okay. Um, you whichever way it doesn't there's a way for me to protect my work time at that point. I will Okay, Amy, I'm giving you this list. You'll find a partner. Okay. Um, and uh now let's uh vote on the resolution. Bailey. Yes. Okay. Yes.
044Magnus. Yes. Potter. Yes. Motion passes four to zero. Okay. Is there a motion to adjurnn? I move that we adjourn. All those in favor? I. All those opposed. Okay. Motion adjourned. Motion. Meeting. Meeting. Thank you everybody. Thanks for a good conversation.