001Okay, we're live. >> Okay, welcome to this evening's Augusta Board of Education special meeting. It is September 24th, 2025. It is 6:42 here in the CATC cafeteria. And I just have one item of business before we get to this agenda. Uh we had talked previously as a board to have a retreat in January and that committee has met and the and they're offering up for dates January 10th or January 24th. Um, do you have like a um where you can kind of schedule your pref preferences >> like a doodle poll? >> Yes. >> I we didn't do that yet. >> Or you could just I suppose >> does anybody have a preference on either of those dates? It would be a full day session on a Saturday. >> I don't think so. You guys want
002to just >> email >> Susan or April or Charlie? They're the members of that committee that's pulling that together. So, if you could just let them know by when, Susan, >> I can make it. >> Okay. >> Perfect. >> Are you send? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Great. So the plan for this evening is we have with us Dan Stockford from Brienne Isacson, our attorneys and there's been a lot of questions that have been arising from board members about legalities and legal questions and what can be done. So we thought we'd offer the opportunity so that all board members could have that same opportunity to hear the answers to the questions that inquiring minds want to know. And just as a reminder to the board that this is a meeting and we will go through
003the process. We're going to start to maybe tighten up a little bit on our Robert's rules of order and it not be such a free-for-all. So, I ask that you do be recognized by the chair and then we will refer the question to Mr. Stockford. And if something should arise that does require an executive session, we are prepared to do that as well. If something is being said that's not appropriate for public session, we can go into an executive session to discuss that issue as well. So, with that said, do I have any brave souls who'd like to toss the first one out there? Member Parks. Thank you. Um, at our last business meeting, Attorney Stoford, um, one of the public commenters mentioned the case Cohen versus California from and stated that any public commenter
004at our meetings could say any profanity or obscinity that they wish to. and she made a she gave us a list of them. And then right after that, many of the public commenters began using profanity and obscinity durities during the public comment section. Does that case apply to public comment segments of a schoolboard meeting in Maine in which we can make guidelines for the public comment section? So may people just say any profanity any obscenity they wish to make during that section. >> Thanks for the question and it's good to see everybody. >> Thank you. This is my um one of my colleagues when I first started practicing law used to call it a stuntable lawyer. We'll play a little game. Um I haven't read read that case. Um so I can't speak specifically to
005that case but generally um the there's an ability to um your public comment period you know from a legal perspective would be considered limited a limited public forum and there is some ability on the part of the the chair to regulate um the um you know what is said and the appropriateness of what is said um in a school environment where um profanity and exploitives you know you know would potentially you know be contrary to you know your mission and purpose and you know your your mission of educating kids. I I think there is some ability to regulate the level of discourse that um occurs and to address um profane and um inappropriate commentary. So, um, you know, I I think that is worth your policy committee looking and and the board looking at in
006connection with potential amendments to your policy around public. >> Thank you very much. >> Not going to get off that easy, I don't think. Anybody have anything else that they've been wondering about? Damn boys. Um, I'm curious when we talk about uh defamatory remarks, um, I guess I'm curious as to why it's the school board's responsibility to police that. Um, and if somebody in my profession, if somebody makes a defamatory remark about me, my employer does not does not go out correct whatever the patient says. It's so why are we policing that? I I guess I just want to know from a legal perspective, is that a responsibility? Is that the responsibility of um their union if if something is incorrect? >> Yeah. the you I mean ultimately you know the extent to which you
007you choose to regulate that is ultimately a matter of policy for the school the board of education. So you're free to adopt a policy that is perhaps more lenient than than your current policy. Um I you know I I think from a from the perspective of um the the board and the school department as an employer. Um it can be um pretty challenging to morale um for employees to be put up and and publicly criticized. Um um and you know I think that's why um you know most school boards in Maine um attempt you know try try to do the best to protect employees from that level of um you know public ridicule that can happen. Um, and as you I think you're probably aware and we we've discussed the under the law it's permissible.
008It's not permissible to say only um public only derogatory comments are prohibited. Um, if you're going to prohibit um derogatory comments, then you should be also prohibiting auditory comments about this. Um, so ultimately it's a m it's a it's a policy policy issue for the board. Um but um I think there are good reasons for you know trying to minimize um the you know potential embarrassment or or ridicule um that employees can be subject to through that type of of you know discourse. Just to follow up on that question, what you just answered was in addressing the public comment section. When it's public comment, does that prelude the board from making comments when we're doing um uh recognitions of staff on an agenda item? You know, I think that would you it's a it's a
009good question as to whether there's different rules for I mean your your public forum is when members of the public get up and talk. So um it it simp you know that doesn't preclude the board outside of the public comment period from reacting to recognition or um when um teachers or administrators get up and talk about their programs complimentary things. So it's really the issue is during the public comment period with less courtesy. >> Thank you. Member Parks, did you have your hand up? >> Yes, I did. You use both the terms the term defamatory and derogatory in your answer. Do you remember Dan was um question are those synonymous in your mind? >> Um no I don't consider them. >> Okay. >> Because I have def I looked up defamatory and it said that
010it it's a comment that it could damage a person's reputation. >> Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. And derogatory is about an attitude of negativity or criticism toward another person. Uh so I see them as different. Um during that same um that same uh board business meeting that I alluded to earlier, uh one of the board members stated that um defamatory isn't defamatory if the person saying the comment believes that it is true. Is that a gauge that we are able to use in in such a quick setting, you know, quick business setting such as a business meeting? I thought that that would be something you would determine in a court of law if there were a a defamation hearing. Um, but I did find that that was one of four elements that would be would have to
011be approved for defamation of character. Um, can you speak to that? >> So, you defam defamatory generally means a false statement of fact about somebody that's harmful to their reputation. Um, the um, you know, I I agree that it's not always possible in real time for to judge whether a particular comment is, you know, false. Um and you know I think it's you know appropriate you know as a matter of policy to rehab those comments but um I think where where statements are defamatory or derogatory um you know and again this is a matter of policy for the board. Um but the the if you have a policy that prohibits those types of statements um you know and you apply it to both positive and negative statements I believe that is legally defensible to do
012to to have that policy in practice. >> Thank you Hicks. >> Were you calling? Yes. Okay, good. Um, time limits. We set a time limit of three minutes. If a person goes over those three minutes, um, what's the recourse of the of the chair to govern that? I mean, a few sentences over three minutes, but then if they just stand up there and keep going. >> Yeah. I mean, the the chair is certainly free to cut the person off if they're not complying with the rules of engagement that have been set for the public comment period. Um and you know if somebody refuses to comply with that rule um you know I I think you know being you know providing some leeway is appropriate you know may be appropriate but you know in in order
013for a rule to be to to mean anything you have to enforce it. But um you know I think um it's certainly within the the um chair's discretion to um shut the person off if there's a mic potentially turn the mic off and ultimately if somebody's not complying with the rules they can be asked to leave and it'll ultimately remove. So um you know I think that should be a last resort that's an option available when somebody doesn't doesn't follow the guidelines for public >> I had a question about um when we take a recess when things have gotten heated and we haven't been able to get someone who has been warned to leave the podium or it just gets to the point where it's it becomes an argument back and forth. Um are are
014recesses considered a violation of free speech if we take ourselves out and call a pause to the meeting? What is that is that okay for us to do? Is that incur on someone else's right to speak >> the school? It's a school board's meeting. Um, and if somebody's not following the rules for public comment, um, you know, and it's becoming a disruptive, um, you know, scene, um, I believe I I don't believe it's a violation to say, let's take a break and then reconvene after after we cool things off. Hi Dan. So if you if we go and take a break and we go into a room and we start talking about policy or the people in the room or how what changes can we make is that an illegal meeting unsanctioned not called to
015order >> if you take a break and then conduct business outside >> more than a quorum or unable. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean it depends on whether the committee is transacting business during that time. But if you're having a substantive discussion about issues, then you know that should be part of the public meeting and and the public should have access to that. >> The the terminology that the freedom of access act uses is you know the transaction of functions affecting the citizens of the state. So the legal issue would be is the committee transacting >> business >> during that time period. >> So another thing that seems to come up a lot is that just um a verbalization from folks and perhaps a misunderstanding is that our business meetings are meetings that we hold in
016public. They're not public meetings. Can you talk a little bit about what a school board meeting does versus a public meeting? >> Yeah, I mean, you're here to, you know, in in any any meeting, you're here to do the business of the school committee. Um, so it's not a it's not a free-for-all. You have the ability to, you know, establish rules and parameters around how how these will engage with the board. Um, so I don't know exactly, you know, what you're comparing that to when you say public >> like a limited limited public forum as a term that we you know the differences between the two. I think there's there's been a lot of people who have spoken who have made several references to the fact that this is a public meeting and they should
017be allowed to say what they'd like to say, but that's not necessarily correct. It is a limited public meeting. Is that correct? >> Mad. the difference, sir, between a limited public forum and an open public forum. I think that's right. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> So, yeah. I mean, a limited public forum is not there's not a opportunity for anybody to talk to get up and talk about anything. You have a policy that says the purpose is to talk about education in school matters. So that that right there is you are defining what's permissible and then you have a policy that sets rules around how people engage and that is permissible in a limited public forum. Whereas you know if you have a public park and people can
018get up and you know say whatever they want and that you know that's that's an open forum. you're opening it to the you that the purpose of that type of meeting is not to you know is not for a public body to do business. Um and therefore the rules are more restrictive as to what can be what can be limited in that type of context. >> Okay. Thank you very much. And perform >> um what is there a requirement for school board members to return emails to constituents anywhere? >> I I'm not aware that there's any specific requirement that that correspondents has to be responded to. >> Can I read a policy super quick? It's a very short one. Um this is code policy AB. the people in their school district. The public schools belong
019to Can >> I just ask is this our policy, Katie? >> Yeah. >> And it's what again? Could you say it again? Which one it is? >> It's the first one on the list. AB >> AB. Okay. >> The public schools belong to people. The people exercise their proprietorship through the elected process in the national, state, and local level. So, we understand that you know they um elect the state federal representatives who establish the framework of the law which the schools operate. Then it says, "The people elect a school board to represent them to determine local educational policy." Um, the board is mindful that the people are the ultimate governors of public education and that the board is directly accountable to the people. The board also believes that accountability is a shared responsibility involving students,
020teachers, administrators, including the superintendent and the people themselves. Um, which makes sense because parents are responsible for getting their kids to school and then we'll educate them. Um I just I'm struggling with a threshold of we have I have not counted but I would guess between 65 and 65 emails in our inboxes that ask for a specific request. At what point are we responsible or what point are we negligent in our duties by not answering them? I mean, I think that's less of a legal question than sort of a board, you know, governance and best practices question. Um, you know, certainly, you know, you I think it's probably good practice for elected officials to be responsive to constituents. Um, you know, at at the same time, you know, people have limited bandwidths and and abilities
021to, you know, but perhaps depending on their personal circumstances, how much time they have to engage in in that back and forth. So >> um you know so ultimately you know I think it's sort of what it's what's the best practice and and you know the board has the ability as a matter of policy to sort of describe what the best practices are. Sounds like there is there has been some effort to do that policy. >> Thank you >> member parks. Wouldn't that also sir have have to do with the content of the emails? because um at the same business meeting that I've alluded to already twice um there was a call from one of the board members to the public commenters and whoever was watching on channel 7 to send emails to all of
022the board and request that our chair resign. And so the third I only got 35 or so emails, but those all were about uh the chairperson resigning over which I have no control and over which I have no comment. So the content of the emails, wouldn't that determine whether it requires or wants a reply? >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. You know, I think as a matter of person of of the judgment of each individual board member, you know, there may very well be some emails that you don't feel merit a response or that's a matter of personal choice on the part of the elected official. >> I have a question. Sometimes there have been situations when um people in the public who are observing the meeting are behaving inappropriately. And I've had a conversation I
023had a conversation both with with the mayor and with the city manager who was the former chief of police about is there anything anywhere that allows you to remove or ask a member of the public who's disrupting the meeting to leave the meeting? And I would of course give him opportunities, you know, warnings prior to that. Is that something that's allowable? He mentioned something about interrupting business uh government business as a reason that you could do that. I'm just wondering legally where that would stand. >> You know, as I as I've said previously, the meeting is the boards and you you're meeting to conduct the business of the board. If somebody is engaging in behavior that is preventing that goal from being accomplished because it's disruptive, distracting and there is an ability to both direct
024people to stop the disruption and if they don't stop to ask them to leave and if they continue to not abide by the the instructions of the chair to ask that they be removed. And again, you know, that obviously should should be a last resort, but um you you have to have the ability to conduct business and um ultimately it's it's your meeting as the board of education. >> Mr. Member or >> No, sir. Uh so we've had the words defamatory and derogatory being spoken about. Um so what is the difference between when an individual or the chair uh goes and stops somebody from speaking uh based on what they have said in the past that uh they are being subjective and not objective uh in making their determination of defamatory or derogatory. um what
025is the difference between that and what would be considered a civil rights violation of of viewpoint discrimination? So, and I I think I've touched on this, but I'll I'll speak to it in perhaps in more detail. the there's precedent that in regulating comments about personnel that a public body um should apply that rule evenhandedly to both complimentary comments and derogatory comments. Um and um so but I you know I I don't think think that that that question should necessarily come down to what is the definition of derogatory or defamatory. The question should be somebody you know either is is somebody talking about personnel in either a complimentary or derogatory fashion. So that's a matter that there's some precedent that there's the ability to to limit that. Um so it shouldn't be based on viewpoint. It
026should be based on the the specific parameter that you've laid out around limiting speech that is either complimentary or derogatory. more >> follow up on that. So, so some of the situations that we run into is that there seems to be coincidental times of uh a 3m minute timeline for somebody to speak and about 2:30 time all of a sudden uh something is said that's in my opinion is neither defamatory, derogatory or anything. without talking about any personnel, just speaking in general. Uh, and then gets gabbled and off family says, "Well, you're making a defamatory remark." Well, what am I saying? I don't have to tell you what I'm saying. I don't have to explain what the defamatory remark is. And then the time ends and then tells them that they're done speaking. So it
027just seems that there's been more in the way of viewpoint discrimination as they don't like what somebody is saying whether good or bad um and because of their uh biased uneven application of the rule that they are making that judgment. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean I I can't speak to the specific situation, but um certainly it's good practice to you be I mean being the chair of a meeting during a public comment period is a very difficult exercise. So um I uh you know I I think it's good practice certainly to be as even as possible. Um but you know it it in the in the heat of the moment and you know the things happen fast um I think that's a very challenging thing to do but certainly that's an appropriate goal to achieve
028in in in presiding over public comment. Um, as you shared, being a board chair in a public comment session is a difficult job. So, if the board chair doesn't hear something that somebody else on the board dis determines thinks is derogatory or defamatory, what is their course of action to bring attention to that? Can they call a point of order? What do they do? Um, yeah, I I I don't consider myself an expert on Robert's rules, but um, you know, that type of, you know, certainly I'm not sure at what point you can raise a point of order. Um but um I think that you know it certainly is an option for a board member who hears something that was inappropriate to to bring that to the chair's attention as best they can. >> Mr.
029Tracy. >> Yes. Thank you. I been doing a little studying on rocket rules. So I'll just if I can insert myself to question. Um I believe you can um after being uh recognized by the chair call up an order and then that places the judgment of that question back in the place of the chair to then judge what you know board member X thought they heard and then if the board chair says oh okay I agree with that thank you for clarifying and then makes a different judgement that that can then proceed that way. If the member who made the call to the chair, then the the chair disagrees with the member's call, then someone could second that and the board can to appeal. So you that member would motion to appeal the chair's decision.
030And this is I admit this is new learning for me. So, this is a spot where um if a judgment's made and a member wants to appeal the chair's decision, they can and get a second for that. It could be discussed. Everybody gets to talk once. the chair actually gets to speak twice and giving the deliberation on their judgment and then it goes to a vote whether the chair's decision stands or whether it would be overturned by the board. So there is a mechanism for the board to make judgment on on that. I hope that helps answer that question. >> Member War goes back to Mr. Tracy. So is that is that referencing what Katie was saying? But specifically for that instance, so in that instance, if somebody puts their hand up while the speaker
031is speaking and they say point of order uh and they are recognized, does that stop the speaker's time while while this is all getting hashed out or or does that time continue to run out and then they're just not able to finish speaking? I I believe the correct response would be that the time would be paused while the board deliberates and then whatever deter if the determination then is if the chair calls for the person to say step away from the podium and the the board upholds the chair's decision then they would have to leave the podium. the board overturned the board's the board chair's decision then they would remain at the podium for the remainder of their time or until another thing is called something okay that's my understanding of that >> member or
032so in um in the aspect of maintaining a professional decorum Um, is it uh best practice that instead of a board member staying at their seat, raising their hand, uh, and calling for a point of order, uh, that in instead because they hear something that they feel is egregious to them, again, viewpoint discrimination, um, and then runs up to the podium and starts talking into the chair's ear and then the person gets stopped on their time or doesn't get stopped on their time but gets it was derogatory. Uh the board member goes back to their seat and then the time runs out and the speaker's time uh that was taken away from them to speak. uh because of the interruption of the board and the I guess lack of professional forum that whole situation. Would
033that be a true statement? The um you know I think the chair has a lot of discussion on how how to the minister the time. Um but um you know I think it's appropriate you know to take into account you know in in calculating somebody's time sort of whether there was an unavoidable um uh event that prevented a person from having access to their full time. So I don't I obviously not familiar with the specific scenario that you're that you're speaking to but >> keep in Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think I think, you know, the the chair, you know, it's appropriate to the chair to take into consideration how how long somebody's been speaking and if they if if they are prevented through with through no fault of their own from using the full
034time, um then it's appropriate as as the superintendent said to perhaps give them a little bit more time to make up for the the time that they were denied, you know, for reasons outside their control. >> Member Pell. >> So, yes, you mentioned um the discretion of the chair. I'm wondering if that's sort of true for each meeting. So, for instance, let's say there's 12 public comments, one meeting, and so the chair gives three minutes or four minutes. And let's say in the next meeting month there's 20 and 10 are not from Augusta. Does the chair have legal discretion to say, "All right, we're going to just do two minutes and prioritize those from Augusta until a certain time and or should does the chair stick to precedent set or is it really very much
035looking at the context of the meeting, the tenor of the meeting and then deciding how best to prioritize public comment?" Yeah, I mean I think it it's um the I I I don't think there's any, you know, there's there's nothing that prevents taking into consideration the specific circumstances of a meeting and how many people want to speak in determining the amount of time that's allotted for each speaker. Um and you know I think that's an example of where the chair has has discretion as to based on the specific circumstances of the meeting and how many people want to speak how um can they deny people to speak if time is up for public comment if it's a set time? Yeah, it's perfectly for Mr. to have, you know, for to set aside, you know, so
036many minutes for public comment and how many people, you know, how many minutes per person, okay? And if that time runs out and there's people that haven't counted you, you know, again, >> it's an example of, >> you know, it's it's the board's meeting. You need to you need to conduct business. >> There are other things on the agenda than public comments, some discussion. And just to clarify, our policy does state that there's 30 minutes allowable for public comment. >> No, it doesn't. >> It doesn't. >> It's under the agenda, not under the public comment. >> Are you recogniz? >> Yes. Why? I'll let you recognize member McCormack. [Music] >> I guess my point of clarification before you said that and I'll go and look at that in a minute was the fact that on
037beedh it says that the chair may limit the time allotted for comments on a particular topic as well as the time each individual may speak. So this whole precedent that we have set of oh it's always three minutes or it's always going to be some time it doesn't have to be it doesn't have to be we don't have to set a time I guess do we need to set a time or do we not need to set a time I think member McCormack saying there's a 30 minute uh and let me just clarify I think member McCormack is correct I don't believe you have 30 minutes in the policy when I start the agenda. It's under the agenda, not on the public comment. >> The agenda format BDDB. >> There's nothing. >> Well, I review.
038>> Well, it doesn't matter. I mean, we haven't been doing that. I think we've been accommodating. >> I don't think we've turned anybody away from speaking. >> Oh, no. It is. >> It is. >> Sorry. Board member comments is limited to 30 minutes maximum. a board member comments. Sorry, >> we haven't limited it in the past, but we can that a time limit can be set at each me meeting by our public comment policy. >> Member Parks. >> Yes. Um the guests at this meeting, they're not allowed to speak or make noises. Is that correct? >> No, we don't have public comment in this meeting. >> Okay. I just heard a snicker. uh when someone was speaking to Miss McCormick, I would like to remind that person that there is no comment or no sounds
039made. We we do ask that you'd be polite if you're attending this meeting. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. >> Thank you. >> Number. So, we were given a legal opinion um from your your law firm. Um and I I understand that it's uh confidential and and attorney client privilege. So, I'm not going to say anything that's in there. >> Um >> are you are you referring to the email you got today or yesterday? >> Yesterday. >> I can comment on that if you'd like to because that may it may help you. >> Yeah, because I sent an email. I didn't get a response from you. Um, >> thank you, Mr. Ore, for the for the question. Um, I did hear I spoke with our attorneys last week in order to line up this
040meeting uh to have Mr. Stalker here tonight. Uh, when we discussed about some of the things hypothetically that I thought we might be talking about, some of it you're getting into tonight. I think you you might be headed into Title N. um we discussed some of those things so that uh our attorneys could understand what our board might be interested in hearing about. Um they thought it might be a good idea to to send a clarifying statement about basically the the title N policies. So um if that's where you're headed next, you may discuss that. I have permission from Mr. Lo Gran I to be able to talk openly about the recommendations they made in their letter to us. So yes, you may speak publicly about that even though it was listed originally as a
041confidential attorney post privilege notice. We we can we can speak about that letter. I'm just letting you know you can. >> Okay. Thank you. Because it does say that on the letter. >> Um Okay, great. Since we've opened that door then. Um so part of your opinion that as of right now we're supposed to not do anything and just wait for uh everything to go and vet itself out. And in my opinion, that's doing nothing more than continuing to endanger children, especially girls. Um, you made one comment that uh that uh in that that the Biden executive order, the only way reason why those went have gone away uh was because of the uh Trump executive order that was that was in your statement. I go find it and read it to you. Um but
042but that's that's actually not true. The reason why the Biden executive order uh went away uh was because back on the 9th of January uh >> correct they didn't they didn't Yes. It was whatever uh they said that the revision violated the constitution. So, so it was unconstitutional. The Biden 2024 executive order was unconstitutional uh because the fact that it uh had violated the the federal department of education had overstepped uh their bounds. So that was the the that is the actual reasoning of why we had to as a school board go back to the uh 2020 policies, right? We had to go back to to pre by an executive order policies which was a 2020 version that we we have now that aligns with the gay human rights act because it still has gender
043identity in in that. Okay. Um and and then uh the chunk's executive order actually got signed on the 25th of January 2025. Um so in that you're saying that we as a school uh we have a a potential that we could be sued by the state through to the state because of the main uh any violations of the main human rights act if we follow title N. Right. If I understand your opinion correctly. >> Yeah. I mean that >> was it was a double-edged sword on both sides. There's risk on each side. So I'm talking about now I'm initially talking about the risk on one side of where you're saying that if we follow Title N. You're saying that the risk is that we could be brought up for lawsuit because we could be in
044violation of the main human rights act. Right. Well, the I mean the ultimate question is what what does title N mean and what what and the you know the point of one of the points of that letter is you know ultimately how what title N means will be determined by the in this context will be determined by the Supreme Court and currently don't have a Supreme Court decision that addresses. In fact, there's a Supreme Court decision under title 7 that finds that there is protection under title 7 in the employment context for gay and transgender individuals. So the and then and then it hasn't been addressed by the federal appellet court that covers Maine the first circuit and it hasn't been addressed by the federal district court for the district of Maine. So we we
045don't know what we don't know what the ultimate legal decision will be that controls you know what happens in Maine. And and then flip side of that is we have a very specific state law protection for individuals based on gender identity. So the point that that we make in that letter is simply that that it it is a lower risk to you know continue to comply with the um with the um with the main human rights act in this area. Unless and until we have some kind of type of binding dis decision from a federal court that changes that that requires that that that makes clear that the main human rights commit the main human rights act doesn't control >> right >> we don't it's pretty pretty clear that an executive that executive order you
046know again I shouldn't say it's pretty clear but it it certainly is not clear it's right it certainly It's not clear that that executive order has a preemptive effect on state law. So, you know, until until we get a until we get a court decision, you know, we believe that the best course of action is to continue to comply with the main human rights act which has been interpreted by um the main Supreme Judicial Court. >> Right. and and and your reasoning is because of the fact that the the concerns of possible lawsuits if we are following title n that we could be sued because of violations of the main human rights act. I believe that was what the opinion said again when following title n is we don't know what title n says because
047we haven't heard from the supreme court or a or a federal court that has binding precedent in so so but I agree agree subject to that. >> Okay. So, so the flip side of it is if we stay and we follow the main human rights act as you're saying that the threat is lower um and not following title 9 uh through the Trump executive order uh because in your opinion you are saying that the only actual concern that we have is monetary of the federal government might withhold funding. um you referenced the uh the nutrition money had been pulled and then it was deemed that they had to give it back because they couldn't withhold that money. So you kind of alluded to that we could get sued by the main human rights act if
048we don't follow the main human rights act but if we don't follow title nine uh the only threat we have maybe is potential loss of federal funding. Correct. Correct. Okay. So, so that was the lesser of two evils is do this. Okay. So, in in asking and I'm sorry this is kind of alluding I I needed to bring all of this up so we could try to get to to where this needed to go. Um, so if there is a a girl and they are playing a sport and they are hit by a boy that says that they're a girl. Um, does that biological female have the ability to sue? Yeah. I mean, I often say that anybody can file a lawsuit. So, that's certainly a possibility. um you know that type of claim you
049know is you know it it is certainly possible that you could face that type of claim the mean torque claims act I think that's the type of claim that probably there's immunity under the claims act generally for that type of claim um haven't researched that specifically but okay but but but you're right I mean certainly the somebody claim there is that okay would be required. >> So uh have you heard of the private right to action that's actually in title 9 that is not actually in uh the human rights act? >> Yes, I I'm aware of of the availability of a private right of action. and and could you explain to everybody here so uh we all understand what that private right of action is? >> Well, generally a private right of action is the
050ability of an individual to bring a lawsuit to enforce a specific law. Some some laws there's a private right of action that's available where people can enforce it individually. Other laws, they don't allow a private right of action. And I believe title N I don't Yeah, I actually am not sorry. >> It does have that. It does specifically have that language in there. So >> and I I guess I would just speak to just to speak to your your board could decide to reject our advice and and do something. So So it's certainly a map, you know. Yes. Certainly >> because everybody's going to take everything. This is this is my goal for what some of the board members want. Um I'm just as we're going through you're saying that the main human rights act
051if we don't follow that we follow title n our biggest concern is that we're going to get sued potentially uh by people under violating violations of the main human rights act because we're not letting a boy go into a girl's bathroom. Right? That that is the concern. And on the other side of following title nine or or yeah not following not following title N is that we maybe have a threat by your opinion of only losing uh federal dollars which is not 100% true because of that private right to action of where every single child in the Augusta schools if They walk into the uh uh a girl goes and walks into a girl's bathroom because uh main state law still says that they're separated by sex and a boy that says that they're a
052girl goes in there and they assault that girl or they sexually harass that girl or they commit indecent exposure because that's the main state law, right? indecent exposure. That's a >> criminal that be criminal offense, right? Okay. So, so if they if they go if they void because the parameters of somebody being um suffering from gender dysphoria or not, that that guardrail has been thrown out. So, so sir, you could say that you're a guy today and tomorrow you could feel like a woman. Um and that is permissible because you strongly feel like that because you listen to Shania complaint. So given the fact that that is what the current standard is. Um what is the threat? What is the potential? How many lawsuits would the city of Augusta have to suffer with if every
053girl uh to include the uh immigrant children who are Muslims who literally are not able to even show their body uh to males violating their religious beliefs. If everybody started having lawsuits because we're actually not in compliance with title N, wouldn't wouldn't that be um a higher risk act in that in that case? >> Yeah, I I I guess I I I don't think at this point there's an indication that that's a higher risk simply because we have a very clear precedent under state law um as to what being human rights act means. We don't have any clear precedent under federal law as to what you know that supports the that interpretation of title N. Certainly there is some precedent in other jurisdictions that might support that you know that type of claim. Um but
054the way things you know stand here in Maine in 2025 I would say that I would I would say that there's higher risk currently under the main act. You know, we and that's why, you know, we've suggested let's let's wait and see where the case law goes. And if a case law goes in a direction that, you know, where where we would conclude that there's a higher risk of maintaining you know, complying with the main human rights act. When we come back to the superintendent and say, "Look, it makes sense to take another look at this." >> I have member Gambles and then I have member Clark. Member Dan, um I want I would like a little bit of clarification. So on page three of your letter um where it says made law enforcement policy,
055it talks about in 2014 the Supreme Court held DO versus RSU 26. Um and they went on to say in explaining it holding, the court emphasized that its conclusion rested heavily upon gender gender identity and gender dysphoria disorder diagnosis. um both of which were acknowledged and accepted by the school. Um but the court cautioned that we did not suggest that any person could demand access to any school facility or program based solely on self declaration of gender identity. And then it goes on to explain a little more about um how they make that determination. So what what I'm concerned about is when I read this um as a healthcare provider, I make diagnosises all day long. Um who's determining that these children have um gender dysphoria diagnosises? Um is it an LCSW? Is it a
056primary care provider? Is it an endocrinologist or psychiatrist? like, do we have care plans for these students? Um, and so it seems like what I'm hearing is that there's this broad spectrum that is being painted for the main Human Rights Act, but based on this case law, it appears to me that it's not a broad spectrum, that it's a very narrow scope of what is acceptable and what isn't. And I I guess I'm confused because it sounds like people are saying that main human rights act is anything goes and this case law is not that. Since that case was decided the main human rights act has been amended and to very much more specifically protect um individuals based on their gender identity. So that there's you know based on the language the current language of
057the law there's some question as to whether that the protection is broader than only protecting individuals who have a medical diagnosis disability. So but that you know again that's an that's an area where you know there's been a change in the statute. Um, we haven't seen the case, you know, we haven't seen the cases interpreting it yet, but there's certainly a basis potential grounds under the revised language of the statute. The gender dysphoria diagnosis wouldn't be a prerequisite to protection parks. Thanks. Um, I just want to say that I appreciate the letter from Peter uh that came or the email that came today. Um, and I I think that it is the right amount of caution to avoid what is called anticipatory compliance, which means that people begin to comply with something and then they
058don't keep track of whether it's been brought to court, what the court decided, whether it's been appealed, etc. So, I would I am in favor of waiting until 2026 as Mr. Low um suggested for these things to go through the court system. And I just would like to say that many of the emails uh from the public is there a question? Are there questions? >> I'll I'll be okay and Susan. Um, so I'm not doing the right thing. >> No, you're fine. You're fine. >> Okay. Um, >> thank you for interrupting my train thought. Um, [Music] want us to come back? Well, I just want the the actions that have already been taken against the executive order that there are only two human sexes in the United States of America to go through the process,
059the judicial process, and for Title N to go through the judicial process before we begin our compliance with those I think that's the wise way. Um, so there wasn't a question, but I think it's okay to make statements, so I just make a statement. Okay. >> Do you want statements or do you want questions? >> I thought we can we can ask statements at the end, but I'm not stopping them. If you It's your turn, Katie. Member McCormack. >> Dan, what is the disparit impact clause or I don't really know what to call it, but there's a disparit impact in relation to the main human rights act. What is that? >> Well, there's two theories of of discrimination. One is disperate treatment, and that would be, you know, targeting somebody specifically because they're in a
060protected class. Um and then disperate impact would be an otherwise neutral policy or practice that while itself is not, you know, targeted at an individual has a disperate impact on it's not specifically targeted against an individual based on the protective class. um it has a disperate impact on individuals in that protective class and therefore the theory would be that that is that is discriminatory. So, it's just a different form of discrimination, not specifically targeted against somebody, intended to target somebody based on protected class, but a neutral policy that ends up on, you know, descriptively impacting that individuals in that class. >> Well, isn't there something that says that you can't take rights away from one protected class and give them to another protected class? Isn't that something about desperate? >> Um, >> yeah. I there
061may be I I I need to sort of you know better understand the the you know the scenario. Um but >> for well the example here would be we're taking the safety and the rights away from the girls and we're giving it to the transgender and they're both protected classes. So, we're weighing whether or not one is more important or better or safer or more entitled to that safety than the other. And they're both protected classes. Does that make sense? >> Yeah. Yeah. I It does. And again, I guess two comments on that. One is, you know, the board, you know, has the ability to decide, you know, what what its policy is going to be around around these issues. And you don't have to listen to our sort of risk analysis. Um and um
062you know ultimately that's whether that's a legal prohibited is you know ultimately will be determined by the courts for us to so we I I anticipate that at some point we'll have guidance on whether what you describe is legally problematic. So in the meantime there there have been four to five school districts who have declared their district only will I don't know what to say uh that they have decided to fall in line with the executive orders perhaps preemptively seeing into the future or the crystal ball that was referenced in in this uh letter. So what do they know that we don't know? Why are they doing that, do you think? Have you has anybody looked into that? Like have any reach out to them to say what's going on here? Yeah, I mean I
063I think my you know my guess is it's you know based on a discussion among the board you know their school boards as to where thing you know what what's the right decision in light of the legal risks and ramifications. Um and you know and we provide legal advice. We don't have a, you know, we don't have a dog in the spite or horse in the scrap. You know, you know, again, it's it's really up to the board as part of, you know, as part of it decision making to decide where to fall on that. But from from our perspective, it it's a lower risk and sort of stay much worse for now until there's more clearance. So when you talk about risk, the last information that I saw in the MIHS data survey was
064that there 1.6% of our students and I think it was our students. It might have been kind of a county, but I don't recall exactly. It's been a while since I looked at it. So 1.6% of a thousand kids might be 16 kids. So when you think about that and we have not yet heard how many of them actually play in sports in Coney or at Coney when I think about risk I think about where we've said to these 1,200 girls that more than half play sports that their rights to safety or to a fair playing field or to, you know, everything that Title N afforded everybody, women. We're saying that that's less important than these this 1.6% or 16 kids. So, when I think about risk and I think about the amount of parents
065or the amount of lawsuits or anything that could happen, I don't know if I if that computes for me when I think about it that >> Yeah. I I mean I think that's an argument to be you know that you know to be to be made in in the context of you know more discussion about what the policy should be. >> Got it. Just may I Yes. I don't want to interrupt, but I want to try to answer a little bit more of them's question because I have spoken to some of those superintendents >> and I think the answer frankly I think that those communities um have a prepoundonderance of where you're saying that doesn't compute for me or Mr. I'm picking on Mr. Or but Mr. emphatic statements that uh about this subject that
066I think there's a majority opinion in those communities whereby those school boards have taken the risks that their attorneys have advised them not to uh because some of them are the same attorneys that we use uh in those communities. So I think just just frankly that they those communities have taken the risks against the advice of say the attorneys who are advising us of the same thing. So I think that's how and why that's being done in those places. I don't know if that helps answer that question. Okay. >> I guess >> and they're just and they're doing it by adopt they're not because I've asked them specifically are you reversing on changing your ACA and ACA policies and the answer is actually no in most of those places. I think one is doing some
067work with those policies but what they've done is they've I'm in my own mind I call it the bridge policy. They've adopted a new policy that basically is a very short policy that recognizes the executive order as law and we uh we are being advised as I've told you for these months that we've been advised against that. So that's um anyway that's what Mr. Stark reconfirmed tonight. But that's the answer to how those other communities and why those other communities have done that. And I guess just my follow-up statement and then I'll yield to others is when you talk about majority opinion, I feel like our inbox is full of majority opinion. And I've not heard from I think we had maybe three people in a meeting that have said that they thank you for
068the opposite of following the executive orders. So I feel like when we talk about majority opinion, we have that, but I will yield to others. Thank you. I just want to check in with board members who haven't had an opportunity. Member Paulo, did you want to have any questions up? >> Well, just that statement of majority opinion I feel like is a is um a bit contorted because part of why I believe a lot a huge grounds well for public comment and those resign emails came in was because of a concerted effort um with folks on this board to do so. I I think when we say when we say like majority, we're also not necessar I think there's a lot of like opakeness of the general public of what we're talking about, what we're
069voting on, why we keep talking about it for months and months. When we did have that January meeting back then, we had very much much more on the side of not changing. So, I just I think sometimes I'm hearing things that I'm just like I think that it's skewed. I think that the the opinions of folks that purport facts are skewed. And I would say that before we say a majority opinion of Augusta, we should really make sure we have majority opinion of Augusta. That's before we put words and votes and ideas into other people's mouths. >> So, how do we get that? >> How can we ask for >> Excuse me, you haven't been recognized. member Reynolds, did you have any questions that you wanted to ask? >> No, I uh thank you also.
070Um no, I um I don't have any questions. I uh actually just like I uh resonate uh very much what was just stated because I what we were talking about was I believe it was the first thing that I voted on my first night. Correct. And I that night I had no idea what was going on. If you recall correctly, I uh abstained from voting a few times because I wasn't even sure from then until now. I uh feel like it has been very contorted. I like sometimes feel like I have a grasp of what is going on. Sometimes I feel like it's done. Sometimes I feel like I don't. I am also an atlarge seat. So I do care very much about everybody in August. I'm supposed to speak for everybody. Right? I don't
071know the way every one of these parents think. Right? If I came here and I voted for what I thought or put my opinion in there, that would be a um we're supposed to have a a nonpartisan seat, right? That that is uh I think that's inappropriate. So, I don't know how to even proceed with this because I don't know what the general public I don't know what every I do know what I have in my inbox. Absolutely. I don't know the hundreds of thousands or whatever people in the city that don't know what's going on or don't know their position. That's why it's it's difficult for me to make a statement uh without my personal opinion on the matter. Thank you. >> Hey, I took out a question that's off this topic. You've been
072recognized, Mr. or I'm going to take an opportunity to ask a question. >> Madam Chair, you said to raise your hand and you'll be recognized. >> I have your name down on the list. I'm going to take a turn. >> Charlie raised his hand after he wrote it down. >> Mr. stock just to change it. Something that comes up is the member's obligation to follow policy and what is an appropriate way to address board member violations of the of our of policies >> or recommended. >> Right. It's a good question. It's question I get a lot. Um and um you know I I you know I I think the first step the best first step is always to try to be persuasive um and encourage board members to comply with the policies that the board
073has has adopted. um if you know if if that's not effective um I think often you know sort of on a onetoone basis um you know it's possible for the board to meet in executive session with a you know as a board and talk about that and you know have a discussion and try to encourage compliance. Um and beyond that, you know, but you you you you as a board don't have the ability to remove a member. Um you know, there there are options, you know, to issue a public reprimand or or censure. Um and you know, I think that's you know, I would encourage that to be a last resort. That is a that is an option available to the board if board member is not following the policies that the board has adopted.
074>> Thank you member or >> thank you madam chair. So, uh, when the May human rights commission, um, goes out and been, I guess a NBDN, the Banger Daily News dump, um, they do an article and they say that, uh, they will not be going after any schools that uh, follow Title N. Um, I guess that more or less states that the the state that that commission which is the ones that are supposed to be enforcing the main right, they would be the ones that file suit as in the Jamesville versus RSU 46. They were the ones that actually file >> also there's also a private action under the tax. So >> Oh. Oh, there is now. >> Okay. When I asked you before >> Oh, I thought you were asking about under tax. >>
075Yeah. Yeah. So human rights act was completely >> right because the main human rights act was the one that actually brought filed suit against >> yeah in that case I think the commission the commission file it's relatively rare for the commission to bring an action. It's more common for individuals to file complaint in that if they're not happy with >> commission develops that addresses that the individual has the ability to go to court. >> Right. Okay. So, with the main human rights commission, uh, having said that they're not going to do anything one way or the other, um, that kind of lowers the risk for us to, uh, be able to vote in favor of Title N. and um acknowledging the over 2,000 years of history of mankind where there's only been two sexes, male
076and female until like 20 years ago when all of a sudden you could be a cow, you can be a dog, you can be whatever you aspire you to want to be, which is an emotional mental health issue, not biological fact. >> Yeah. And just to just quickly address that, the the way that the main human rights commission process works is that generally individuals before they go to court are required to file a complaint with the main human rights commission. Um and the main human rights commission will will investigate and make a decision of whether there are reasonable morons to believe that there's been discrimination or there's not reasonable grounds to believe that there's been discrimination regardless of what the main human rights commission's finding is the individual still has the right to go to
077court. Um and and in in many cases, you know, that there's also the right to request a right to sue letter after after a certain time period, after a complaint has been sitting with the commission for a certain amount of time. And because the workload of the commission is so backed up, it's not, you know, it's very common for people to get to get right to sue permission. So you regardless of what the commission you know does with respect to its own you know review of cases ultimately those decisions will be decided by the court we already have some precedent about the court's you know the the judicial court's view is on interpretation of at least you know some of these issues. So um the the a non- enforcement declaration from the main human rights
078commission ultimately doesn't dictate what the level of risk of getting sued is. So that that's the point I would response to that is that >> I'm sorry I didn't I didn't I didn't catch you. Charlie, you mind if I take Charlie tell me first? >> No, he can go. >> Go ahead, Charlie. Well, as I see it, Title N and the main human rights commission were not in conflict until this executive order came. What happened was that Biden had an executive order back in 2024 and that went through the court system and has been undone. absolutely undone and we've gone back to the 2020. If our if our policy is based on what the Human Rights Commission has said and we're waiting for the new Title N things to go through the courts, um it
079seems to me that that's a sound policy for the school board to have to wait and see what happens in the court. But the folks that are against it come to the meetings and they're very very animated and I don't blame them. They feel really strongly about it. But it seems to me that they might be better off lobbying the main human rights commission to change their mind or the legislature to change the law that made it that way in the first place. So, at this moment, this board is getting a lot of flack, which you know, hey, that's that we signed up for. But it seems to me that if we follow your advice, which I recommend we do, then um they maybe if you can't wait for it to go through the courts,
080perhaps, you know, go to the legislature and see if change that. But >> are you talking >> our decision? I'm talking to anybody who wants us to change our policy and that would be you. Of course, I'm looking at you say it, but the gentleman over here has said a lot of things at the meeting. >> Please wait to be recognized. >> That's all I wanted to say. It's not really a question, but >> I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I thought he was we were getting into saliloquy, I believe, is the technical. Was that the correct one? >> That would be a subjective judgment a little >> I guess that's my question is you know what is the process now? Can we put the does it go back to policy and then we say into policy
081like we're not changing it into a board vote like how can we get some sort of result because we've sat in these meetings we've discussed it over and like I hear >> I can answer that shel >> okay but I would like it to be it's on the agenda for the October 8th meeting to vote whether to reconsider that it's not it's not to consider the policy it's not to have a conversation about the policy at that meeting It's whether this board has an appetite to re-examine the policy. So, it's we're not changing the policy. We're deciding whether we're going to entertain it. >> Miss Clarks, >> I have a statement. May I make it? >> Yes. Um, not only has Brandon Isacson given us this advice, but Drummond Woodsome said the same thing in
082a uh dayong legislative update webinar and in-person meeting on the 15th of September. um to just follow Title N as it is, keep the policies the same, wait for the executive order to go through the court system. If people want the Main Human Rights Act to for these protections to be repealed, then they need to take that to the legislature. Thank you, >> Member Moore. Almost got me sidetracked on what I was going to say. Um, so I guess let me ask you this question. U since it was brought up before that if we have a um, uh, board member, maybe even a chair um, that is violating board policy. uh because our board policy uh where it says to be able to bring a policy that we have and bring it to the policy
083committee. Um it only requires one person to bring that policy up and have it added on to the policy agenda. That is what the that is what the policy actually reads. Um, so having said that, do you do you feel that the uh the chair has the ability to usurp some sort of authority that I don't believe that she actually has as a as a fellow uh member that got elected uh like myself uh to stop uh that policy from being uh brought into the policy committee meeting uh to be talked about. Mr. appointment order. Madam Chair, >> Mr. Tracy, >> um just before you answer that question, um I know you're speaking hypothetically about any chair. Um so that we don't have to go into executive session and talk about one member. So hypothetically,
084I'll just restate the member's question. Hypothetically, if we have a a chair of any committee, and that would include actually our standing committees to your point, we have chairs of standing committees and chairs of the board who set our agendas. But I don't I think he asked you how do you feel or is it right for a member to we have multiple chairs of multiple meetings. So I think if you rephrase your question to does any chair have the right to dictate the agenda or stop something from coming onto an agenda? Is that okay to restate it that way so it's more general? >> I guess if it makes it makes me feel better um I'll rephrase it. Uh so our policy again says that uh any board member uh can request a policy uh
085brought it back in there and there's nothing that says that that policy can be stopped from going into uh the policy committee uh to be heard. Um that being said, if those actions have happened um which I'll say hypothetically those actions have happened um on a couple of different occasions uh because I have asked for the title N policies of uh ACA uh abaca to be brought into policy. committee so that we can just have this conversation um over the last few months and uh the members have actually hypothetically uh even changed the verbiage of what the policy actually says. So I guess I would be defamation or derogatory if I said that they were lying. I guess right unless it was true. Um because they but you have to go back to video to
086actually go and look uh to see that they said that changes couldn't come back unless it was voted on. They had to have a majority vote in order for something to happen. Uh gez I kid you potentially I'm not even allowed to get a legal opinion from you even if I ask our superintendent without a a majority vote from this board. Constraint, right? Right. Because you represent me as well, right? >> Yeah. >> Right. Generally, generally the best, you know, the best practice and most policies are that you know, if you're the superintendent has the ability to ask for, you know, legal advice. If an individual board member wants legal advice, then it should be through the consensus in the board. So, I mean, I think that's best practice. You don't want to be, you
087know, having us respond to a bunch of individual questions from board members, you know, could be may not be efficient from a a financial stand. >> But to go back to the policy question, if it says that there's nothing to there's no reason why anybody should be able to stop that, then that policy should be brought back into the policy committee meeting in order to be heard. Right. >> Yeah. I mean, I I'm not familiar with the the specific policy, but clarify. If a individual board member at a public board meeting requests uh policy go to the policy committee, can a policy committee chair or the board chair, whoever sets the agenda, dictate whether that policy is reseg does the request of one board member preempt the decision of the chair or or a policy
088chair committee have to legendize it. >> Generally not. It would be a matter of discussion for the for the chair of the the committee or the or the board chair. Um so I think if if it's a if it's an issue of interpretation of policy beyond the scope of not having >> Okay. So I an effort not to just tell someone no, right? Are we just trying to like help a member? If a member wants a policy to go, could they make a motion to adjust an agenda at a public meeting? >> Absolutely. >> And then get that seconded and then get the board to decide whether that's agendaized or not. >> So seems like you know that that would be the best practice mechanism. >> Have the have the board decide. >> Okay. >>
089Is this an issue that we want the policy committee to look at? >> Thank you. which is why it's on the October 8th agenda >> for a board discussion. >> That's the business meeting. That's not the policy committee meeting. >> Please don't interrupt unless you recognize. I'm just going to say that um actually Robert's rules of order speaks to whether a motion can come back once it's been approved. We're and and we've been a little loose with our operations of Robert's rules of order, but that's something that we're going to tighten up. Uh it also says in the policy that a member may request an agenda item, but requesting an agenda item doesn't necessarily mean that that has to happen. And if a board member feels that they're not being recognized for something, they do
090have the ability, as far as I understand it, not having officially checked with the parliamentarian, they can ask for an item to be placed on the agenda, you know, an adjustment to the agenda, put it on as an item for adjustment to the agenda with a motion, with a second, with discussion, and a vote, a vote of the board, a mechanism for that to happen. Member McCormick. >> Policy BG-R, which is the procedure that has to do with policy adoption, says individual board members, board subcommittees, the superintendent, and members of the public may submit policy suggestions and concerns directly to the policy committee. Policy suggestions that are submitted to the board chair or the superintendent will be forwarded to the policy committee. School unit employees should follow any applicable procedures. We know about that. Collective
091bargaining. The policy committee together with the superintendent will be responsible for reviewing and resourcing suggestions. There's nothing that says that a policy chair can say no. There's nothing that says that. It might have been previous practice, but there's nothing that says that a any committee chair can put a obstacle in front of another board member and not allow something to be on their agenda. There's nothing that says that. And that includes saying things like you need new supportive documents or it has to be a vote or whatever. There's nothing. So that is something that maybe we all need to take a look at, but at some point we were just making stuff up. >> I'll just I'll read policy deed. Am I Am I good? >> Thank you. BDE-R where I got that from member
092McCormack was just the policy that says BDE-R B letter B that says the chair of the standing committee in collaboration with superintendent or designate will establish the meeting to promote an orderly flow of information and effective operations of the board standing committee. So just I just cited that as the rationale as to why I think in the past it was the the policy committee chair sets that agenda. It wasn't I'm not suggesting we should prevent anybody from bringing anything forward. I'm not I don't want to be misunderstood but reading this policy that's why that that's where that rationale came from. >> Member move forward. What is beed-r B? Excuse me. BDE Bde-R standing committee operating procedures. >> Other questions for Mr. Stockholm stock. Did I get the right stock? >> I'm sorry. >> Didn't know
093where I've been called Stockdale. >> I'm sorry. >> Member McCorman. Um Susan was talking about the gentleman with some sum training the other day and I attended it as well online and I believe the two of you were in the room were um and when they did talk about title N because it was a question that was brought up in chat. I think Susan you brought it up in chat correct in the chat of the um Zoom part of the meeting. My observation of the body language of the attorneys that were answering the question was squirming. It was shifty eyes. It was they couldn't wait to get the question answer done over fast enough. And at one point they said, "If you don't have to dip your ore in the water, don't do it." And
094I'm just like, "We're on the freaking Titanic right now." Like this is terrible and we have to get through this somehow. And unless or until we change something, it's never going to stop. So I would like to how so to Rita's point, how do we achieve a grasp on what the majority of what Augusta wants? Is that a public survey where they have to register and then we verify that they are actual parents or residents of Augusta? where they answer one question. Do you want Title N or do you want the opposite? Do you want to follow executive orders? Like how do we achieve that? Because we're all sitting here thinking that the majority of Augusta is different things. So I don't know who would like to answer that. Dan, do you have an opinion
095on how we might achieve that? >> I I I don't think it's so much a legal question. Um uh I mean Certainly conducting a survey a possibility. I mean, you know, you you're a body of elected officials that have, you know, the ability to been elected to represent your constituents and advocate for the the best interests of the of of the students and and the school system. Um, you know, the question is I think the question is should you um take some measure of public opinion beyond what your experience is as a public official? And I think that's really up to the board. Well, am I to assume that every board member that speaks out against following the executive orders hears from what they perceive to be a majority of their constituents in favor of
096that? >> Are you asking me? >> I'm asking any board member. Based on conversations I've had, folks are in favor of not putting ourselves at greater risk and moving into that. I think the reason why the lawyers are squirming on your call is because this is way over the complexity of this issue is way over what we are going to fix. So the Titanic is because of what we have created. We can get out of this and not have a Titanic. We can figure out what issues are real to the students at Coney or in our other schools. we can figure out what's actually happening and we can focus on that by actually having real people from Augusta come and speak to us in public comment in an environment that feels good where they're not
097going to be recorded. They're not going to be chopped up into little bits. They're not going to be harassed online. We as a board have to have a governance structure that takes ourselves seriously enough where we provide a safe and and uh safe and and I would say respectful environment for differing opinions. I'm of the mind where I don't I don't know how to answer the transgender girls in sports question. I don't that's complicated and there there are so many nuances to it. But would I go against our standing laws to to poke around at it based on the legality and the discussions we've had and what we learned? No, I wouldn't because it's not our place. Our place is to comply to to do what we can with our state and federal regulations and
098provide the best education. And we haven't talked about education in months. >> So I think our even our own public commenter said stop focusing on this and start focusing on school. I'm with that. I'm with that so much. I think we can't solve this. I think we take we do our best to understand the legal repercussions. I'm glad we're having this discussion. I think there's a lot of people in Augusta who are not flailing that this is the number one biggest crisis situation that we face as a school district. Uh, I think most people would want to see our time and energy spent elsewhere. And the fiscal conservative people of Augusta would not want to put us in a policy situation where we are more likely to get sued. So I like I I I
099think people know where I stand with this. I am not an expert on transgender folks, although I do think some of the things comments that were said here today were off. Again, we do have transgender students in these schools. I was told by somebody that they've never felt welcomed in any other school environment and they feel welcomed here. They feel like they have friends here because half of transgender students are going to be suicidal in their lifetime based on statistics. So we if we have eight students based on your math then we have where 16 students and we have eight students potentially considering suicide. So there's actually more there's actually what I'm saying is there's more context to all of this. And just because you folks like some folks have felt really strongly about this
100I hear you. I I understand that this is important to you, that you're worried about sports, you're worried about girls. I hear you. And I also don't hear us being able to dive into this and go willy-nilly into this when the legality and the precedences are right in front of us. So, I'm I'm of this mind that this was really helpful and I'm going to act accordingly to what I think is most civil. I think that folks from Augusta that have responded, I would love to send a response email to them about why these decisions were made about how thoughtful and careful we've been as a board to consider it. The fact that we have enabled public comment to be what it's been as much as as it can be difficult sometimes to hear all
101the criticisms, okay, we've heard them. So, I I think we've got to figure this out and move on. But the Titanic is our own self-making. It is not something that we have to be living. And I would say that it's a particular what happens is I think that we have not talked about is the is the rest of the public that we don't then create a space for them to want to come and speak. So while this while voices have been great, they have been outsized compared to what other folks are going to want to come and say. And we need to make sure that we create those meetings to be a place where anyone feels like they can come and they're going to be able to be heard and spoken to and not and
102not have comments coming all over the place, not be recorded while they walk out because that's just like not what civil human beings do with each other, especially when they're neighbors. We're not those people away. We're your neighbors. We go to the same supermarket as you. Why create this hostility? Yes, we have differing minds, but we're going to follow legal precedents. And that's just where the like for me the subjectivity ends and that's where we're at. So I I just I I don't if that's what you wanted to hear from me that is what my thoughts are and I don't think they're going to change at this point based on what I've heard tonight. >> Member McCormack. >> Um question for Dan that something that has come up before is the supremacy clause. What is
103that? Constitution's deferency clause and does it relate? >> God, you're making me dig into my law school. >> I know, right? >> The uh I mean generally the um federal government has the ability to legislate in a manner that takes precedent over state law. And that that gets into this issue of is there is there federal law here that controls over main state law? And the basis for the letter that was distributed was there isn't clear federal precedent on this issue. And therefore the we we cannot say that there's been preeemption because the executive order is an interpretation but it isn't backed by um by finding federal press. >> So can I read something and you stop me if you say no way that's not right. The supremacy clause makes the constitution federal laws made
104pursuant to it and treaties the supreme law of the land. Right? So that's what people are saying, people out there, not necessarily in this room, but people are thinking the constitution has a supremacy clause. The federal is the law of the land. The president's the law of the land. We we know that this is an executive order. So then it says, but executive orders are not automatically supreme law, which we do agree on. And that's why we're all waiting with baited breath to see what the Supreme Court is going to do in 2026. However, executive orders derive authority from existing law. A president can only issue an executive order within the scope of authority given to the executive branch by the Constitution or by Congress. If an executive order is within that authority, then it
105has the force of law over federal agencies and officers. And I think that that's I think I might have heard Rita say that before, but like when it comes to the federal stuff, it trickles down or like for federal employees only. I think at one point you said that. Um how does that affect the states? The states are not generally bound by executive orders in the same way that federal agencies are. An executive order could indirectly affect states. For example, by conditioning federal funding or directing federal agencies to enforce federal law in certain ways. Um, if a state refuses to follow an executive order, if the executive order is just an internal directive to a to federal agencies, which some of them happen, I mean, there's been a lot, maybe like 200 or something. There's
106been a lot just directed federal agencies, then the state is not violating the supremacy clause by ignoring it. But if an if the executive order is enforcing valid federal law, for example, civil rights protections under statutes like title nine, then the federal law itself, not just the executive order, preempts contrary state law. In that case, a state could be found in violation of federal law, which I think we're starting to see a little bit um when the Department of Education goes against, you know, Virginia counties and whatnot. So a state not following a presidential executive order is not automatically a supremacy clause violation. I think you have said that it depends on whether the executive order is enforcing valid federal law or constitutional authority. Um title 9 is a federal law. We know that it
107prohibits sex discrimination in fally funded education programs. because it's a law passed by Congress, it is binding on states and schools that receive federal funding under the supremacy under the supremacy clause. So, I feel like there's a little bit more digging that somebody should do that's educated and there's not me. Um, presidents sometimes issue executive orders or guidance telling federal agencies such as the Department of Education how to interpret and enforce Title 9. So, one president might direct agencies to interpret sex discrimination as only biological sex, where another might direct them to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Can states refuse to follow them? States don't follow executive orders directly to follow federal law. But if the Department of Education, following a president's executive order, adopts regulations or issues guidance on how Title 9 will
108be enforced, schools in every state must comply if they want federal education funding. I guess I'll just stop there. Just I don't know. There's It feels like there's something to that. It feels like there's something to the disparit. It feels like this isn't We know it's not black and white. Obviously, we won't be having this conversation. So, again, I would like to delve into sometime. How do we achieve a grasp on what the majority of Augusta wants? Because I think we're all looking at it from different angles, and I don't know what that means. I do have one more question, but I can wait. >> Anybody else? >> Go ahead, Katie. No one else is waiting. just because we're finally getting to actually have this conversation and we're not feeling stifled. I would like to
109ask something that I recall from previous conversations over the years. And Miss Lisk, I apologize. This might be you, but if somebody wants you to answer that question, I'll let you know. I recall a conversation when we talked about ACA that said that there are stickers placed on classroom doors if that's a safe space. Is that accurate? Still current? the um when out main came and did a um >> presentation I think to the board we were given >> ally stickers. >> Are you aware of any of those? >> Yeah, I'm sure they're at school. >> So we have some up probably. Yes. So, my followup to that is here somewhere. I don't know. It's here somewhere. I guess my Okay, follow-up question to that is what sort of training does a teacher need to
110have? Is it extra specific training to transgenderism to mental health disorders or anything that allows them to say, "Hey, this is a safe space for you by putting a sticker on their door." Is there any >> I'm going the races of my >> I know, right? >> I'll defer to >> Got the answer. Um I'll just I just need to understand that question again. So what makes a a teacher believe that they're able to create a safe space? >> Okay, in our evaluation system TPG, it says that students teachers need to make the safe uh the classroom a safe space for all students. So it's clearly in our it's it needs to be welcoming. It needs to be um it needs to be um open to diverse perspectives. Um so that's what we has have
111as a standard for our teachers. >> But as far as our guidance counselors or social workers might have some specialized training to refer to them's question, but the teachers may not have any specific designated training or anything in reference. Well, we went through um a gender identity training >> um probably three years ago. Um it was required that all school districts go through that, but since then we've hired additional people. So, I don't know um the percentage of our faculty that have had that. But I guess I'm still unclear like if they put a safe stick space sticker up, they believe that they're creating a welcoming community for all people. So they believe that they're qualified to do that. We've hired them because they're qualified to provide a welcoming community to our students. So I
112I there's nothing more than that. Certificate, they have a ed tech certificate. the guidance counselors go through their education masters programs the um uh school clinicians I guess like I guess I'm trying to figure out what else you would want me to answer on that like >> well so I guess a concern that I've heard is that um that allows it's not just a safe space in general but I don't know who I'm asking this question of but um is it it's Not there's no way to do this nice thing. It's not something that says hey you can come in here and we can share secrets. It's nothing like that, right? >> No. I mean the thing is there's a scope of practice for every um uh role in a school. And so any um
113a student might open up to a coach to say or a teacher or an advisor and say um I'm struggling. Okay. And the adviser might be like okay well I hear you and let's refer you to someone who has expertise beyond the teacher's expertise. So things related to mental health, safety concerns for themselves or others. Um there's a number of issues that teenagers bring forward but the teacher the edtech is the primary probably person coach because that's who the student feels comfortable with and then the expectation that we talk about talked about it today in our early release day that it would be referred to someone who has you know more education and helping students >> and and I you know if I may I just want to make sure that I'm clear that we
114have a professional boundaries policy and all of our staff get trained every year annually. you just this like we have like a professional boundaries policy and if that's violated whatsoever uh that makes its way to my office then we deal with those cases and I have dealt with in the last four years we've dealt with those cases in the and not that there's been a lot but the handful uh we deal with those as as soon as information comes in that someone might there might be some level of inappropriate discussion between a teacher and a student we we manage that very quickly because that would clearly not be that's not what we're talking about here. That would not be appropriate >> member parks. Well, I would like to call for >> Let's see if there's
115any last questions and I'll do that. How's that? >> Member. >> Thank you. Um, thank you for coming, Dan. This is something that obviously people in this room feel passionately about. I just hope that going forward we can continue to have a good conversation without calling people out on either side. We can be open and honest and be okay to share what we're feeling and how we're um voting or how we are um looking trying seeking to understand. Um and I hope that again as as Rita spoke that these are bigger issues that we are not going to be able to solve in a two-out meeting at any point. Um, so I want to get back to hearing about the great things that are happening at our schools and the challenges that our educators are
116facing and our community looking for answers as to how we can support our community and students as a whole. That's what I want to get back to and I want to I want to I want to when I leave the board this year, I want to make sure that what I did was important and be valued for what we the work that we did value our work. So I implore everyone who is um going to be attending the meeting, board members, the community, uh school staff that we have respect for each other. Please respect other people's positions. It's difficult to respect one person's position when you aren't respected on the other side. And maybe it comes down to bas basic civility and decency. So let's be good to each other. Let's respect our opinions. You
117have your right to speak. and let's respect the vote of the board, whatever it may be, and move on. Thank you. [Music] >> Thank you, Dan. >> Thanks, everybody. >> And I'll entertain a motion to make a motion to adjourn this meeting. Second move and seconded discussion, please vote.