Bellevue board keeps revised transgender student regulation after hours of public comment; consent agenda, salary packages, superintendent renewal approved

The Bellevue Board of Education approved a consent agenda that included proposed revisions to an administrative regulation on transgender students after more than an hour of public comment on April 14.

The board’s consent motion, which trustees approved unanimously, covered the administration’s recommendation to adopt items listed under the consent portion of the agenda and to receive information and proposals listed in later sections. The consent vote also included a set of negotiated and nonnegotiated salary agreements and the superintendent’s contract renewal.

The item that drew the largest turnout was the proposed revisions to the district regulation that address how staff should treat students’ gender identity, athletic participation and communication with families. Public commentators spoke for and against the change. Supporters said the revision protects girls’ privacy; opponents said it would put transgender students at risk by removing established privacy protections and by redefining participation rules.

Edward C. Ventura Jr., identified himself as speaking on behalf of Tim Royers, president of the Nebraska State Education Association, and asked the board why the regulation was on the agenda for final action without earlier notice. “Policy 205.02 on policy adoption requires the board to give notice of proposed changes by placing it on the agenda of two regular board meetings,” Ventura told trustees. “That is not listed on the agenda for today’s meeting.”

Several parents and students said the district’s current regulation, which has been in place for about a decade, provided protections they feared would be removed. Daniel Linder, who identified himself as a father of two children in the district, said his son is transgender and described the personal harm of removing protections: “Keeping the language in the handbook literally saves lives,” Linder said.

Teachers and counselors urged caution. Samantha Vargas, who said she is a teacher in the district, said removing non‑disclosure protections would damage trust between students and staff: “How can students know who to trust if their right to privacy is not guaranteed?” she asked.

Students also spoke. Caitlin Warren, a Bellevue West student, said many peers lack safe homes and count on school for protection: “School is often one of the safest places for students like my friend, and this policy would make school an unsafe place,” Warren said.

Speakers who supported the proposed revisions focused on privacy and safety for cisgender girls and cited biological sex as the basis for restroom and locker room access. Ruth Fisher, a parent in Bellevue, said the board’s alternatives for separate spaces are “calming and compassionate” while Timothy Fisher said, “Girls need to know they are safe the whole time they use these facilities.”

Board members and administrators responded during the meeting to multiple points raised in public comment. At the board’s request, an administrator identified as Scott said the district’s decision to bring the regulation forward was driven by multiple factors, including federal grant language and recent contacts from concerned students and parents. Scott told trustees the district had recently lost a roughly $2,000,000 federal grant because of language in a grant application and that the district receives about $10,000,000 in federal funding overall — a factor the administration said it must consider.

Scott also clarified how the proposed regulation would change staff communication. Under current practice, he explained, staff members are told that information a student shares is not necessarily confidential. “Now the change would not require staff to notify parents but allows that staff could share information in circumstances that are not confidential,” Scott said.

During the public comment period, speakers repeatedly asked the board to pull the item from the consent agenda for fuller discussion and stakeholder input. Several speakers said teachers and students had not had advance notice of the change. Former board member Sarah Centineo urged trustees to remove the item from consent so the board could “have a robust discussion and bring in the stakeholders.”

After hearing public comment, the board’s recorded consent‑agenda vote was unanimous in favor of approving the consent items as presented. The motion passed with all trustees voting yes on the record.

Votes at a glance

- Consent agenda (includes proposed revisions to administrative regulation on transgender students, listed as item F3 on the agenda): Approved, vote: 6–0. Motion made and seconded on the record; all six voting trustees recorded “yes.”

- Nonnegotiated staff salary package (administrators, secretaries, specialists, custodians and full‑time central office staff): Approved, 4.088% total package increase for 2025–26; vote: 6–0.

- Negotiated classified groups (paraprofessionals): Approved, 4.088% total package increase and one‑year agreements; vote: 6–0.

- Food service group negotiated agreement: Approved, 4.088% total package increase; vote: 6–0.

- Transportation (bus drivers) negotiated agreement: Approved, 4.088% total package increase; vote: 6–0.

- Superintendent contract renewal and transparency notice: Approved (renewal through June 2028 as presented); vote: 6–0.

What happens next

Because the regulation change was adopted through the consent agenda, it took effect according to the district’s normal administrative timetable for regulations. Board members repeatedly said the regulation would remain in place to guide staff while the district continues to support all students. Several trustees told the public they would continue to seek input from students, staff and legal counsel about implementation and legal risks.

The board also heard unrelated informational items on legislative activity and the district’s strategic plan. Lobbyists Courtney Gilbertson and Justin Brady briefed trustees on the state legislative session and highlighted LB653 — an education package under debate in the legislature — and other bills the district is monitoring. The district’s strategic‑plan update noted enrollment churn: 1,565 students enrolled who were not in the district the prior year, roughly 1,000 students exited, and about 28% of the transfers involved military‑connected families; the presentation cited the Anchored for Life program at Peter Sarpy Elementary School, where staff reported about 83% of students are military‑connected.

The meeting concluded after trustees approved the consent items and other votes. Several speakers asked the board to continue stakeholder engagement on the regulation; at least one trustee suggested revisiting the item if further legal guidance or new information emerges.

Ending

The board’s next regular meeting is scheduled for May 5. The public comment period at this meeting had a three‑minute limit per speaker and a 45‑minute total public‑comment window; dozens of community members used the allotted time to address the transgender regulation and district policies.