001Everybody ready? All right. Good afternoon. will call this meeting to order at 4:31 p.m. Following preliminary injunctions issued by three federal courts on Thursday, fe April 24th, 2025. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the reinstatement of board policies that were amended and rescended in response to federal directives. As we previously discussed at the April 15, 2025 board meeting on on February 14th, 2025, the US Department of Education sent a dear colleague letter notifying schools of their interpretation of title six of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that any decisions or benefits based on race, color, or national origin would violate Title 6. On April 3rd, 2025, the US Department of Education sent letters to states requiring that state department of educations and schools certify their compliance with anti-discrimination obligations in order to
002continue receiving federal financial assistance. Several lawsuits were filed by direct by different organizations in federal courts around the country challenging the February 14 and its related enforcement. Since our last board meeting on April 15th, three court issued orders on Thursday, April 24th, 2025 regarding the US DOE's ability to enforce the dear colleague letter and the US Department of Education's ability to enforce this letter. uh certification requirement. We will start with the roll call for the record. I am the chair, Dr. Carmen Sultan, and I am present. When I call your name, please indicate if you are present. Vice Chair Hanss, present. Present on the phones. Board member Anderson, present. Board member Hearnden, not present. Board member Johnson Davis, present. Thank you. The first item on the agenda is executive session. Do I have a motion
003to move into executive session for the purpose of discussing legal matters in light of the preliminary injunctions? So move. Board member Johnson Davis makes the motion. Is there a second? Board member Anderson second the motion. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? I motion. Thank you. The motion carries unanimously and we will move into executive session and we will return. Thank you. All right. Do I have a motion to move to exit executive session for the purpose of discussing legal matters in light of the preliminary injunctions where no votes were taken? Move. Or member makes a motion. Is there a second? Second. Or member Anderson seconds the motion. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you so much. As stated when
004the meeting was called to order and before we entered into executive session, the purpose of this meeting is to discuss the reinstatement of board policies that were amended and rescended in response to federal directives. We also want to thank members of the school community for your feedback on this issue. At this time, we want to invite our legal counsel to provide an overview of the previous actions that were taken and the recent rulings by the federal courts that have resulted in this meeting. Sultan, Dr. Whitaker, members of the board, a great deal has changed since you voted literally two weeks ago tonight. At that time you voted to resend two policies. Policy BAA board school board governance policy BAC equity. You then amended three policies. Policy GAA equal opportunity employment policy IDFA, gender equity and
005sports. And policy JA equal education opportunities. At the time that you voted two weeks ago, you're on the threshold of the dated move because you'd already been under a tight threshold that required you to have the emergency meeting before that because there there was no room to move. The date got moved though. No one knew that was going to happen, but it did. And in order for Dr. Whitaker to be able to sign the certification that the city schools of Decator was in compliance, certain changes had to be made in the process. As you know, certain policies needed to be rescended or rebuilt. Some of them were too complex to be rebuilt in a short time. We rescended those two, amended the other three. What has happened since then is that there are actually five
006cases out there. Four of them have injunctions or states. One of them does not apply to the schools. It's only relevant because some of the same issues are being raised, but it infect it affects civil businesses, if you will, but the principles are the same. The three that affect us, one is in New Hampshire, one is in the District of Columbia, one is in Maryland. The first case that doesn't affect us is also in Maryland but a different court and then the fourth case that's there is in Massachusetts. Let me briefly discuss these cases. These cases are brought by different entities. The first case is led by the National Education Association and their case makes challenges over the dear college letter that was forced upon everybody and they make certain claims and an injunction was
007entered in that case last Thursday. Second case is from the NAACP. It also is against the US Department of Education and it challenges the same letter as well as the frequently asked questions and the certification process is broader. Last Thursday, an injunction was entered in that case. So we had a judge, federal judge in New Hampshire. We had a federal judge in the District of Columbia. They entered that an injunction. Third case with tan to an injunction, a temporary stay. We won't go through a lawful school class and discuss the slight difference between the two. The effect of each for the purposes of what you're dealing with are the same. It stops the Trump administration stops the Department of Education of enforcing what they were trying to enforce. It also was entered on 24th. All
008three courts the same day. They done it maybe two and a half week early. It might have helped everybody. Since were issued last Thursday and injunctions last Friday, 19 states have also filed a suit. Of those 19 states, one state of Maryland is below the Mason Dixon line if you want to use the other line. All the rest of them are either in the west, northwest, middle America, and the northeast. There may be other states joined, but at the moment 19. They have concentrated their complaint on the certification process and they have four primary claims there. Not quite sure whether it was that's the only thing they could agree to or whether or not they think that's the torpedo that will hit the heart of the ship. Not quite sure. No orders have been issued
009in that case since it was filed last Friday. But Thursday and Friday produced big results. What are they challenging? They're challenging due process. Both under the fifth and 14th amendment of the United States Constitution, they're challenged on the basis of void forbageness. You read a law, you need to understand what the heck it's telling you to do. They use terms DEI. They use terms equity. They use terms like the practices of the school system with no definition. And it's going to be very very difficult for them to change that and get them a definition that will that people would know what they mean. as part of the problem we all have. What exactly is it we're trying to protect our system from? But that's a primary claim. There are first amendment claims. Freedom of speech,
010freedom of association, viewpoint discrimination. Of the three courts who issued these injunctions in six states, two of them the judges found that the acts of the department of education, this will warm your hearts were arbitrary and capricious. Basically, didn't but had a footnote that said it smells of it and they'll have an opportunity to prove. Another claim is that the Department of Education cannot by law and that in effect is what they're trying to do. They are not allowed to do that from the federal level. And then there's a claim of lack of authority. The executive branch cannot do what they're doing. There are other claims in there about violating certain uh functions in the constitution over who controls money and so forth. These claims are going to take some time to tear it out.
011And I suspect there's a good likelihood that the suit filed in Massachusetts last Friday could also end up with a state, but that state uh is not there at the moment. But there are three states. As it turns out, country is broken into appellet divisions for the federal court. All three of those courts are in separate appellet divisions, which means if Trump administration, Department of Education seeks to try to get a higher court to overturn their injunctions or states that are going to rule on that. But the consistency of these orders to get a stay or an injunction, there's several things you have to show. One of them is that there's an impending harm and the judges spoke of that that there is harm if we don't stop this till we know that it could
012really be done. And number two, another one is that there's a likelihood from your claim that you will succeed. I mean, if judge says there's not a chance this is going to succeed, they're unlikely to give you an injunction. In each of these instances, those two things were found to be the case, which makes one be very encouraged that plaintiffs in some of these cases will succeed. That means the landscape has changed because I mentioned the first case that doesn't apply to us. We have to have injunctions that apply to us. Those three are nationwide and apply to us. Um, and so we are in a position now of where we were before you voted on April 15th. And therefore, you can go back to the extent you want to go back to where we
013were without being out of compliance. No question about it. So you have several decision you can discuss today. What of what you did, if anything, do you want to resend and go back to and whether or not one of the other options is whether or not there would be a condition on what you do such that if these stays and injunctions were lifted or the federal government actually won its case, which would lift those things, whether or not you want to automatically put us back to where we are right now so we would never be out of compliance. Those are decisions that y'all will need to try to give some guidance, but I'll be happy to answer any questions because it is rather confusing. Thank you. Please understand though, those stays could be lifted at
014any time. I don't think it will be. They could be overturned at any time. We'd imagine all three will be. And they may be they could then try to all get to the Supreme Court. They could take those three, they can all end up in the Supreme Court. Then you get one decision that covers all of them. If there's any question, I always glad to try to answer. Thank you. Board members, are there is there any discussion or questions for the legal team? I think I have one just to clarify um in terms of going back to where we were um before the dear colleague letter effectively. Um, am I understanding that our two options then if we were to do that is we do that um with the condition that we be in compliance
015in the event that one of these injunctions fails or we just do it. I just want to make sure I understand the distinction between with and without compliance. Right. If you let's just take any one of the policies. Let's take the equity policy just by a second. You said we want to reinstate the equity policy as it was before. That policy went through the standard process to be approved to begin with. You can do that. And but you could and and if you did that and that alone, okay, but if the injunctions are lifted or the government wins its case, you would be out of compliance at that particular point. the then you would have to determine whether you wanted to get back in compliance. You'd have to come back and do some of what
016you did on the 15th again. If you wanted to be flunked, if you wanted it to be automatic, you would put a condition on the motion to put equity in there back in. But you would say in the event the injunctions the states are lifted or the United States government wins and can do the things that it's trying to do then then you could have it where it would automatically flip us back to where we are now that such that you would never be out of compliance. Just so that we're clear all three injunctions would have to be lifted. The condition would be not a conjunction or not a injunction but those three Yes sir. or any other future injunction. Correct. And I think there will be a for I can't guarantee it, but it's
017hard for me to imagine. Those 19 states aren't going to ask for it. It's hard for me to imagine that court's not going to grant that given that three have already been granted. But the Yes, that is correct. It wouldn't as long as one of them national that affects us, which is all three, two of them can fall. We're still protected. Yes, that is correct. And then I I wanted to clarify to u just the community at large as well as fellow board members. We are I believe talking about bringing back with a two rescended policies the equity policy and the school board governance policy. And then we are talking about uh bringing equity in sports as originally written. The other two policies did not have any language related to equity in it. The adjustments
018there were position titles and things that don't actually exist within the system anymore and so aren't really relevant to this conversation. In terms of what I think we heard from the community, it really is those direct policies related to equity and the equitable language in the gender equity and sports policy that we want to be talking about today. The other two that you're referring to aren't really speaking of the equity issues. That is correct. And those amendments were more dealing with some titles that we thought could be problematic or the system thought could be problematic if we weren't in compliance and they could use that to say we weren't in compliance. So, uh, the three that have the meat, the three you just mentioned. Yeah. Okay. May I ask one other question? Compliance um can
019mean anything from um access to finances to allowance of structure like so people are in or if we are not in compliance. Dr. Whitaker had to sign a document just like 180 other superintendents in this state to the state department of education who was requiring it two days before Washington required them to certify that their districts were in compliance and the compliance was a if you will a checklist of things basically but it is that we are from their standpoint we are race neutral That's when it really gets down to it. Fundamental principle was race neutral in every way you can possibly imagine and frankly in your lawyer's opinion to an extreme. I mean it just but it nonetheless that's what it did and to be compliant some of the things you can't have the
020lang to be compliant under what they had. You couldn't have a language deep guy. You couldn't be talking about practices that would necessarily be maybe advantageous to one group as compared to another. You couldn't talk about equity and programs of equity. All those things were so Dr. Whitaker. Uh what you did and what the administration was able to do met the deadline such that she could say we were we were compliant when you put the equity policy back. If you put it back today that those are your decisions. You put the equity policy back today according to that compliance. No, you aren't compliant. But it's okay not to be compliant right now because they cannot enforce it. So that's fine. You put everything back just the way it was and you are not out of
021compliance because they can enforce what they're demanding. So they've got to either win their case. Well, they eventually have to win the case, but they either got to give them their injunctions and stays lifted and then win the case. But once the injunctions lifted, there's that'd be the danger point. But and your point continues to decrease with more states. I have a two-part question. The first one is can you um clarify for us what this means with the intersection of some directives we've been handed down from from the state. So for example, the state has some thoughts about using language like bias training um and some of that language may be present in the equity policy. Um the other there are some uh policies that are passing through the state legislature um about um gender
022equity and sports. So if we bring these policies back in total the way that they were before and then there are directives from the state um what does that does that mean that we would have to be on a fast track to then subsequently amend them um or how does the intersection of what we're being handed now from the federal government versus state directives where do those two things align and that also plays into things like language so I think some of what we are we had been looking at was simply just the word equity if we could bring that back and if that is going to be an issue with some directives that we've gotten from the state. It could be. Obviously, we're still waiting on the governor to finish signing laws, but it
023could be. We will take those laws and see what affects school system. Obviously, we've been following a lot of these as they go along, but we will then have to look at those, compare them to our policies, and say, "Okay, we could be right back here, let's say, in May possibly. uh over a policy saying over a law that says we're going to have to do some things to this equity policy to bring us in compliance with state law. I mean we have you don't sign a certification with those. You just are expected to comply with state laws and every year as all of you know there are tweaks here and there to comply or add something in compliance with state laws. So yes, we could be back on any one of these any one
024of these that you put back in. But even with the changes we made, it's possible that ones you just amended, it could be something you have to come back deal with it again. Yes, it's an annual event and this year I think it might be a little more arduous than recent. Well, so I personally I am not of the opinion that conditionality is necessary given that we don't actually know what conditions are going to exist. I know that I I do have a question regarding the certification that we made. When we made the certification, we were actually in compliance. So everything there is correct. If we reinstate the policies because these injunctions exist, we are still in compliance. If those policy or if those injunctions, I'm sorry, are lifted and we are no longer in
025compliance, that does not change the fact that we were at the point of certification in compliance and there is no mechanism to then follow up and descertify ourselves. Well, the only thing is you have a superintendent who signed a document saying that we were compliant and if we suddenly are not compliant, we'll just have to face whether or not we have to send a letter saying until our board can act again. Um, and we may this compliance is not presently fully accurate now. I don't know. We we would have to protect but we would be we would need to be given guidance around that. That's it's not currently extent in any existing policy or anything that we have from the state or the feds. No, but that that certification as far as I can tell
026will be hanging there the whole time this litigation goes on. So if they win the litigation, suddenly we've got a document saying we're in compliance when we know we aren't. I'm not worried about the board particularly, but it puts the signature on that person who signed it uh in an awkward position. So, we would have to deal with that somehow. Okay. But I knowing this board, it would take whatever actions were necessary to resolve it. And it's because I'm on the same page as um board member. you know, these policies were very important to us three weeks ago. Um, we had them in place. Um, and they were things that we upheld. They were are, you know, kind of our guard rails and, you know, reminded us of what it is that we need to
027be doing for all of our students um, in in CSD. And so, I'm I really would like to see the two policies that we rescended, I would like to see those reinstated and I would like to see the gender and sports equity policy reinstated cuz we removed the word equitable from that and I would like to see that replaced. Those other two policies as he said the changes weren't really significant other. Yeah, I that it should be without condition because we don't know what's going to happen between now and then. And you know, right, this was a priority for us before we received um the executive order and the dear colleague letter. And so I would like to reinstate with those policies without condition. And um I think I've got a few questions um or
028I guess statements and then questions or accommodation. So you know one I I hope the fact that we've moved as quickly as we have does speak to how important it is to honor um our values and come here to um do I think exactly what you're talking about. In the meantime, I am very nervous about the lack of condition for compliance if that is going to put um the day-to-day operations at risk. If I understand this correctly, in the event that these injunctions were listed and you know without conditions, then we would be out of compliance. event that the injunctions are lifted, we are out of compliance and then we rush to have a meeting to figure out how to manage this. Is that a crude summary? That would be true. But I you know
029I have to be honest with this body in these changes where there are now three two injunctions in one state. Again, they achieved the same bill. And with a fourth case with 19 states involved, ours not being one of them. Of course, I think there'll be another injunction. That may not be the end of the suit, but I think there is a more likely chance today knowing all this and having had a chance to look at it than what we would have known Friday. be perfectly honest because those orders were just hitting Thursday night and then we got the news dude on Friday. So in having the opportunity to look at them, I'm not going to say we would be in a fail safe position, but I think we are in a pretty good position
030if you don't have conditions that we would have the opportunity. We we would do what we had to to assist y'all to get you where you needed to be. But, you know, it's yes, we would not be in compliance as Washington describes it. I mean, the hard thing in this situation for y'all, the lawyers, just to say, we have the most unpredictable administration, Washington, that we've had in my entire lifetime. And so with that said, who knows what their reaction would be. I think that's where I'm going with this is is it's the um honoring the values of our community, but also honor making sure that I am being as responsible as possible to the school district at the same time. So I think what I want to know, um Hans and Jana, if you
031can answer, is why don't you want the conditions? Because that'll better help me meet the other aspect of this. Um well I didn't want to I voted against resending the politics in the first place. I I thought that we have stated that we value equity. um you know we look at everything through an equity lens and um so I think it's important I think what we have heard during public comment what we have heard through um the emails that we received the letterw writing campaign um is that uh the way and and what the feedback that we received in the survey and thanks to everyone that participated in the survey survey so quickly. Um, while there was a a strong legitimate number of folks who do not want these policies re uh reinstated and we
032didn't have a summary because it was such a quick survey, but the little AI tool in there when I said, "How does the majority of the community feel about reinstating the policies?" the so AI tool said that overwhelmingly the um community members the stakeholders want the policy to be reinstated. that we did not put in there without condition with or without condition. But so what is so I guess the the question is what benefit does it if we bring the policies back that's not the that's not the question on the table. Where do the where does the with or without conditions by frucation where does that benefit us? So, uh, I guess it it sounds to me like if we put a without conditions on there, then if these injunctions are lifted, we're back where
033we started. If we put the with, then we're protected. What is so what is the benefit to putting the without the difference that I see the difference that I see pretty clearly is the the reason why I supported taking the time and stepping back was because the perspective provided by our council was that we actually faced a level an existential based on the requirements of certification based on the way that they were requiring us to behave with the injunctions in place and with the way this legal process is going to roll out even if they lift. I do not believe that same risk faces us. Being out of compliance will not have the same sort of uh immediate extent grave risks to the future of the system the way that it did a week ago.
034Then I pose the same question. What is the benefit of doing it that way? Because I think it's a stronger statement in support of effort. I totally agree. But you're not the the issue is not whether or not you're going to bring the policies back. That's one separate that's one separate part of the vote. The issue is the conditionality. Are you doing it with or without the conditions? So, I'm trying to understand what the benefit is or it maybe if I'm misunderstanding I would love to be I can be redirected. What I the way that I interpreted the initial response from the community was that they didn't want us to res and they wish they'd had an opportunity to tell us that. And so and then the feedback that we got, you know, over the
035past 24 hours. Um because we if they didn't want it to go away in the first place, then why would we make ourselves vulnerable? I I I I've got the sense that this is the position that they want us to take. I feel like the opposite is true. If you're saying we are going to re we're going to take the policies back and then if the injunction is lifted, we're still protected. That's the with condition or do I have that backwards? That's what I wish. I got the sense that folks are willing to take the risk. I am I I am and I am willing I would say this willing be up to the dissolution of the school system. I'm willing to take the risk. I I think we do need to clarify something about
036the feedback which by the way as always I thank everyone for giving it. Um so I think most people know I teach so I was looking at this probably at 2 o'clock. I want to say there were 152 responses. I think I started tallying them at about 120 something and um I loved all of the meaningful feedback. So I I do think it's important though to recognize the at least half of the ones I had tallied I put in a pragmatic is the way I characterized it. I didn't know how else to. So I think like Carmen, I know I'm here because I want to resend or bring these back. that isn't up for question. Um, I'm not as comfortable deciding that everyone has said without condition and it does make me nervous to use
037the Yes, I think we all hate the fact that we are living in such an unpredictable time. Um, it's awful. But I I just need to understand why we're go this risk that we're taking. What does that actually look like? So, so the almost certain scenario that's going to happen, right, if the injunctions get lifted is that it still has to be adjudicated through the courts. And so, even with the injunctions lifted, it is unlikely there is some differential level of risk that we immediately face. We would have the time to come back and talk as a body and assess the risks that we face at that point in time. And if at that point in time the risks are basically nothing until we get a Supreme Court ruling, I don't want an automatic thing
038in our policy right now that still strips the equity policy away. I would rather at that point say, you know what, we actually aren't facing any real incremental risk. Let's not take the policies away and let's see what the Supreme Court says. That sounds like the with though. How is it that is well how is it that how is it that having the how is it that having the with conditions is saying if those injunctions get lifted the policies get taken away is that that's what it says. So it's saying if it either they get lifted or the United States government wins its case that lifts them. So then if the injunctions are lifted if we have the width condition on there then all the policies go away completely. That's what you're saying. If you
039have the condition on there and the injunctions and stay go away, what you have right now will come back into place. Meaning we would lose the policy, right? That's correct. You would be back right where you where you got to on the 15th with the vote. And I think at that point we would want the opportunity to evaluate whether we face a real risk. If we do face a real risk, then let's have a great conversation with the community. But if we do not face a real risk, I would want to leave them in place, not have something automatically strip them up. So you're saying when by you're what you mean by the point we would be where we were on the 15th we would be we would be out of compliance where we would
040have to go back and rewrite all of the policies or we would be protected by saying we had made all of this we had done all this work ahead of time and therefore we we were already in compliance. Which one is the whiff? If you include the condition, if those any any one of those things happen in Jackson and state get lifted where we're unprotected or they stay there in this United States government wins the case. Including the condition would mean where you are now would automatically come back into place. She would be approving today that should those conditions occur, this is a conditional aspect of the this would be a conditional aspect of motion that what you're putting back in place would then flip right back where you are today. No equity policy. That's
041correct. And I and I feel that we would want to have a conversation about what risk we actually face at that moment before we would want the policies to go away. Now I'm conflicted because I'm not sure the community feedback and please correct me if I'm wrong. I think Jenny, you mentioned this. Did it allow for that compliance factor? I I see why we're here to bring these policies back. That's not a question in my mind at all. I mean, you know, that was, wasn't that, you know, just the policies were listed were were listed on the survey in the beginning. Um, but I mean the community is aware that we took a vote to be in compliance and what that resulted in was these two policies going away and equity being scrubbed from our
042website and that language being removed throughout documents. I would assume that the community is aware, those who are engaged, that if we bring those things back, we'd be out of compliance. So, for the folks who said, and it was, you know, it was close, but for the folks who said bring it back, I would assume, I haven't talked to them, that they're aware that that means we'd be out of compliance because I feel like if we're going to agree to be out of compliance, then we need to um be engaging with the community ASAP. Well, we did. Well, I'm not saying we're agreeing to be out of compliance. I am saying that we are agreeing to come back and evaluate where we stand if the injunctions are lifted. But am I correct to read that
043if we do this without any conditions then we are at risk of being out of compliance if the federal government wins or those injunctions are left in. But we are currently at risk of being out of compliance with any change that might happen on any policy that we have anywhere within our entire policy book. And so I I'm we don't in any other policy try try to pre-anticipate what might happen in some unknown future to try to maintain compliance. I don't know if that's a I mean I understand what you're saying, but I think the difference here is there was a directive to do this and the reason that we are able to come here right now as quickly is because there has been those three states. Correct. And the 19 other that you describe
044only one. So Hans, I do understand what you're saying in terms of any possible policy. But my understanding is we are talking specifically about a directive we were given and we followed that and then as soon as we found out on Friday that these other states and institutions have challenged it and now we can do so, we've come here. I mean is that correct? I just don't know the idea of saying that any policy could be up for grabs is is relevant. Okay. For warning when a when a bill will become law and those kind of things just like we'll have to look at the laws that are coming into existence on July one to advise you on those laws. I I must say I think the risk not not for me to take sides.
045My job is to make sure you're aware of the rich as best we can assess them. And my job is to try to keep this school system from harm's way and try to make sure y'all see those potential harm's way. The degree of that potential harm is not as great today as it was Friday afternoon because one we become enlightened about not one not two but three different injunctions instead and we become enlightened over weekend by a suit filed in Massachusetts. The headline is New York is the lead plaintiff. There's 19 states. I don't know that there's no injunction now, but I would anticipate this high probability. So, the risk have reduced, but I would I can never advise the client to just assume a risk. But then again, I'm not the elected official. Y'all
046get to make that decision. It's just whatever those risks are. The greatest risk uh to me has always been we are not constitutional. We are statutory only 21 of us. And if we were out of compliance, would that trigger some who holds a different view of Decar than those of us who live here? So the summary comment that is everything I need to hear to be convinced is that we face less risk now even if the injections fail. And so we we face less risk today than we did last Thursday. I can tell you that once those orders came in now. Does that mean there's no risk? No. But it's less risk. Three things have to happen right now and I think it's going to end up being four. So that's a judgment call that
047you make. I'd like to make a motion. Um I I think the the other thing just as a a final comment, we I agree with you. I appreciate all of the community members who gave us feedback. We got lots of comments. Um it bears stating that um the community feedback was very mixed. Um there were a lot of people who were um very much telling us to bring these policies back as they were written 100% don't modify the language. Um a lot of people who felt like we shouldn't do this at all. Um a lot of people who felt like we should bring these policies back but modify them. Um so I think it it bears just stating for the record. um that there are a lot of mixed opinions out there. Um so um
048I think it's perhaps worth it to realize that this is the first step to making sure that these policies are not only viable, but they have longevity um and that ultimately they can do the best thing for students that Dr. Whitaker can put them into practice. Um, but um, we did ask for community feedback. We did get it. Um, and there were a lot of opinions and they were not all the same for whatever it was. They were a lot of very different opinions. Um, just based on the discussion here, I don't want it to be thought that every opinion um, was in support of bringing these policies back because they were not. Make a motion. Um, sure. Okay. I move that we reinstate board policy BAB, school board governance. That we reinstate board policy
049BAC equity and that we reinstate board policy IDFA, gender equity and sport as originally written without condition. Okay, we have a motion on the table. I think um there is a um there there may be a way we need to modify the language a little bit. It just to the for the conditionality is is is that okay? Um meaning if we don't mention anything about condition, it's just presumptively not condition, right? Okay. Is it okay? Is that all right? Is it okay if I read it with the language for the conditionality? Wait, I don't know. No, no, no. We're we're the the motion that we're trying to do now that I think that that Dr. Johnson Davis brought forward is a without condition. Okay. Got it. Okay. We have a motion on the table to
050bring back um the rescended policies BAB, school board governance, BAC equity, and then amended policy, gender equity and sports by board member Johnson David. Do I have a second? Second. Board member seconds the motion. All those in favor? I. The motion passes unanimously. All right. So, it sounds like we are going to take some action on those policies. Um, like we talked about before, we have option one, which is without condition, and then option two, which is with condition. So just for clarification um we have option one which is without condition and then option two um which is to reinstate the following policies without with condition. I have a clarifying question. Yes. Didn't we just unanimous unanimously pass bringing them back without conditions? So there isn't any additional options. Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
051I I do believe that that was the sum total of our business today. Okay. Thank you. Am I allowed to ask a follow-up question? Yes, ma'am. Chair for clarification that the record will be clear if I might. And it is what I think you passed. pass a motion and I want to get these words correct to resend the actions to reinate that you took that this board took that were adopted at your April 15, 2025 regular board meeting which rescended board policies BAB school board governance and BAC equity and amended IDFA gender equity and sports and to reinstate set policies as they existed prior to April 15th regular boards meeting. Is that your intention? Correct. Yeah. And if everybody agrees that was intention, I just want to make sure that the quoting secretary has language
052that fits because Yeah. I just want to be sure that it was to put those back in place as they were before April as of April 15th. So why don't we make that motion again for clarification? Do you want to read the motion and then I will or why don't you read it and then I'll make the motion just so that it's correct. Well, I think your disagree that we did that. What I think might have been slightly I want to make sure that it was said policies as they existed prior to April 15th regulator. That's correct. I understood that as well. Does everybody agree? Do you agree that was your motion? Yes. Do you agree that was your That was my vote. Yes, y'all voted for that. Yeah, correct. Y'all voted for that. I
053just think it was important for the language to be Yes. clear. Thank you. Okay. Quite well. So, I do want though to understand so that the public also understands what does our timeline look like now? Because again, as we've acknowledged, we're living in unpredictable times. So, you know, the good news is, I guess if there's any good news that it sounds like it's going to be more difficult for the federal government to do what it is wanted. But in the event that that does happen, what are we committing to timewise here? So, we just really would need just like 48 hours, post the notice that we're going to have another meeting and then we would engage in a conversation about what you know, whatever happens, what that means for us at that time is my
054understanding because I think I want and I maybe I have to do my own research, but I think I need a little more information in understanding that risk of being out of compliance. and we don't have to discuss it now but I think it's something that we will have to answer your question we will obviously be following the cases I would it's unusual it seems to me that on these types of cases that have this kinship in these three different jurisdictions that on the very same day two injunctions in a day achieving the same point although the issues are slightly should happen on the same day. I think it's far more unlikely that all three of those would be lifted at the same time. First of all, it's highly unlikely. You can go back to
055your trial judges, the US district judges, and ask them to lift them and say, "We have additional information why you shouldn't put the injunction in or whatever." But succeed on succeed on all three means highly unlikely. Their greatest chance is to go to their circuit courts of appeal and that's three separate circuit courts. It's highly unlikely they would hear them and rule on the same. But if we're watching them and we see, whoa, one falls, we'll let you know. two fall as you're beginning to get closer to that trip switch. So, we will keep our eye on them and so will other warriors in around and we will uh let you know as things change because if all of a sudden two of them have fallen and the other's being considered at another circuit court,
056if two's fallen at two separate circuit courts, we may have a problem and you may want to address it. What was the condition that was being considered? Let's say it gets down to there's only one stay holding up. This body would could, if it chose, pass a motion at that time saying exactly what you didn't do today. You could do then when you're hanging by one step. Blessing here is we're hanging by three. That's rather unusual. The cases will take a while, but you cannot predict the course. Um they're easier to predict than the administration in Washington, but timing will vary on those cases because the issues are different when judges schedule and when they move through the process, but they could all end up at the same time at Supreme Court if decisions were
057out. So, we'll keep you posted as as we go along. All right. Thank you for attending the special called meeting. Our next board of education meeting will take place as scheduled on May 13th, 2025 at the Wolfin Center. There being no further business, this meeting is adjourned at 5:58 p.m. Thank you so much.