Locust Valley trustees debate Title IX and student gender‑identity policy amid warnings of funding risks

Trustees at the Locust Valley Central School District on Thursday renewed a contentious debate over whether the district should follow the federal definition of Title IX or adhere to New York State guidance, with board members and members of the public voicing sharply divided views and administrators saying legal counsel has advised the district on risks to funding.

Policy Committee Chair Lauren Dimas summarized the committee’s recent work and a history of reviews that began in 2019 and continued through 2024. Dimas said the committee previously moved toward adopting federal Title IX language and that the district hired private counsel Nick Ragano to review Title IX and draft policy language. “We went through multiple iterations of draft policies and language, multiple meetings with both Nick Regano and the district attorney,” Dimas said.

Dimas told the board that work had been paused and that administration later advised the district to follow New York State guidance at the advice of Ingerman Smith. She said the policy committee intends to “pick up the torch” and explore legal pathways to return to federal Title IX language. Dimas told the audience the policy committee must either abolish, amend or create policy and that no final action was taken at the recent committee meeting.

Other trustees stressed the complexity and the fiscal risk. Trustee Matt (last name given in meeting as Matt) outlined the potential financial stakes the board faces if it defies state guidance: he cited an estimated state‑aid component in the district’s budget of about $5.4 million to $6 million and federal funding of about $800,000, and said losing either would force cuts to staffing and services. “If we lost 5 or $6,000,000 from our budget, it would be devastating to us,” Matt said.

Trustees and members of the public described sharply different views in the audience. Several public speakers urged the board to adopt the federal position to protect what they called girls’ safety and athletic opportunities; others, including parents of transgender students, urged the board to preserve protections for transgender children and to treat them “as people.” Carrie Lam, a parent who identified herself as the parent of a transgender student, said, “There is another side to this argument… You need to know we are people.”

Board members repeatedly framed the issue as a legal and policy balancing act. One trustee said both state and federal authorities have warned of punitive actions: “the state will come after us and take your money … and the federal government has also made it very clear that they will remove our federal funding,” Dimas said, repeating counsel the committee has heard. Trustees said their work on the matter has included executive‑session strategy discussions and consultation with counsel.

Trustees asked for continued public engagement and said the policy process will include community input. Dimas said the policy committee will present next steps and warned there is no simple fix: “We have to find a path … that includes getting the result that we want at the same time minimizing risk to this district.” The board did not vote on any policy change at Thursday’s meeting.

The issue has been present at multiple meetings and drew the largest contingent of public commenters Thursday; board members set next steps for policy work and emphasized they would rely on counsel and seek to involve the community as they consider revisions.