A Missouri school board allegedly hid its deliberations on a new transgender bathroom policy unlawfully out of fear of parental anger, according to a lawsuit filed by the state attorney general’s office.
It was two whistleblowers on the school board who told local residents that the board was secretly planning to let students who identify as transgender use bathrooms that correspond to their declared gender rather than their biological sex, according to a written statement from Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s office.
When a school board discusses an individual student’s details, information on school staff, legal advice, or legal actions, the public can be excluded in accordance with the law. Discussing policies about how to deal with transgender students doesn’t qualify because it affects all students, Mr. Bailey’s lawsuit alleges.
But the problem stretches far beyond Missouri.
As the number of children and adults identifying as transgender increases around the country and the world, passionate arguments on both sides have erupted about which public restrooms these people should use. Laws throughout the United States vary.
Currently, 18 states protect the ability of those identifying as transgender to use opposite-sex bathrooms, according to the National Center for Transgender Equality.
At least six states have passed bills banning them from using restrooms that don’t correspond to their biological sex. Legislation is pending in many other states.
In Wentzville, Missouri, the whistleblowers acted after a school board member said in a closed-door meeting, “Quite frankly, it’s not the parents’ business” which restrooms students identifying as transgender choose to use, according to Madeline Sieren, communications director for Mr. Bailey’s office.
After the board’s secret meetings on the issue became public knowledge, more than 40 community members filed formal complaints with the attorney general’s office, Ms. Sieren told The Epoch Times in a written statement.
The lawsuit against the Wentzville School District Board of Education alleges two types of damages. It asks for the defendants to pay $1,000 for each “knowing” violation of state transparency laws and $5,000 for each “purposeful” violation of state transparency laws.
Under Missouri law, someone must know the state transparency laws exist to be found guilty of “knowingly” violating them. To be found guilty of “purposefully” violating laws, someone must violate the law while knowing what the consequences would be.
The lawsuit alleges that school board members broke the law, knowing their actions were illegal and knowing the consequences.
The Wentzville School District hasn’t been served a copy of the lawsuit, district spokeswoman Brynne Cramer told The Epoch Times in an email. The board and district don’t usually comment on active litigation, she said.
But “the Board of Education has adopted policies that demonstrate its commitment to Missouri Sunshine Law compliance and strives to faithfully adhere to those policies and the law,” she wrote.
At issue is what began during a June 14 meeting of the Wentzville School District Board of Education. The board closed the meeting to the public to discuss a “legal memo” about “transgender students and restroom usage,” the lawsuit alleges.
A student in the district had recently started identifying as transgender and requested the school open opposite-sex bathrooms to transgender-identifying individuals, the lawsuit alleges. The lawsuit doesn’t indicate the age or sex of the student, or which school was involved.
Debate Over Telling Parents
Eleven days later, in another closed-door meeting, school board attorney Patrick Brazill presented a proposed school transgender policy, the lawsuit alleges.The proposed policy outlined guidance saying the school would not have to tell parents a child identifies as transgender “if there is reasonable likelihood that notifying the parent or guardians would result in harm or undue stress to the student” or if telling parents was “not appropriate,” the lawsuit alleges.
In the meeting, district superintendent Danielle Tormala said the proposed policy “would make us a lightning rod for litigation,” the lawsuit alleges. The board voted to temporarily pause the discussion on the transgender policy, the lawsuit alleges.
Board member David Lewis emailed Ms. Tormala the next day to voice objections to the proposed policy, according to an email filed as an exhibit in the lawsuit.
In the email, Mr. Lewis argued the school should notify parents within three days of becoming aware of a child’s preference to identify with a gender that does not correspond with his or her biological sex or when the child asks to use a new name to reflect that choice.
He also wrote that parents should be notified within three days of the school’s discovery that the child wants to use pronouns or restrooms and locker rooms that don’t correspond to his or her “biological gender.”
“If [a] parent asks if there are any boys using girls’ facilities, will you tell the parents the truth?” Mr. Lewis asked the superintendent in the email.
Board member Renee Henke also emailed Ms. Tormala, Mr. Brazill, board president Jason Goodson, and board vice president Shannon Stolle, saying that “parents should always be notified” of a child’s gender transition and that allowing men into women’s spaces doesn’t “protect all students.”
Later, Ms. Henke emailed Ms. Tormala, Mr. Goodson, and board member Jennifer Olson, warning them that closed-door meetings probably violated Missouri public disclosure laws, according to an exhibit in the lawsuit.
“The Sunshine Law is very clear,” Ms. Henke’s email reads. “Closed Session is specific to private matters regarding individual students, individual employees, and past or present litigation. The usage of restrooms is NOT specific to one student or one staff member but rather the district as a whole.”
Ms. Olson replied that the school board shouldn’t discuss transgender policy in non-public meetings anymore, emails attached to the lawsuit as exhibits show.
Then, on Sept. 21, the school board introduced policy revisions at a public meeting that would allow the board president and superintendent to block any board member’s request to ask the board lawyer about “questions or concerns,” the lawsuit alleges.
The rule would give the president and superintendent more power by making it harder for other board members to get legal advice from the board’s lawyer. The new policy would “chill board members’ speech,” the lawsuit alleges.
When asked to vote on this new rule, the board voted unanimously to postpone discussion of it, according to the lawsuit.
Transgender Laws
Some public schools across the country have committed to helping students keep their decisions to “transition” to another gender identity a secret from parents.The rape was perpetrated by a boy wearing a skirt. The boy went on to abuse another victim before being sentenced.
Lawsuits and the Gender War
At least 1,045 school districts across America have policies that would keep a child’s “transition” to another gender identity secret from parents, according to Michelle Exner, the senior advisor for Parents Defending Education.Currently, 18,355 schools serving 10,718,799 students function under school rules that support keeping a student’s “social transition” a secret from parents, Ms. Exner said.
A “social transition” involves trying to live as the opposite sex with a name, pronouns, clothing, hairstyle, or other attributes that suggest a new gender identity, without taking medication or having surgery to take the transition further.
Parents “should absolutely be informed when these decisions are being made,” Ms. Exner said.
Yet pressure from a small group of vocal activists often motivates these policies, she said.
The new policies often aren’t “reflecting the views of [most] parents in those communities,” she said.
Increasingly, advocates of keeping children’s gender transitions secret have faced lawsuits from parents, Ms. Exner said.
“Whenever you see these legal actions take place, I think that’s sending a message to school districts across the country,” she said. “It’s putting them on notice. I think it’s having a ripple effect.”
Lawsuits may make schools hesitate to hide facts from parents, she said.
“I really see this movement as a counterreaction to the parental exclusion policies that we’re seeing,” she said.
Though some school districts are big enough to weather multiple lawsuits, most don’t want to engage in legal battles, she said.
“The overwhelming majority of school districts don’t want the negative exposure.”
