Central Union trustees approve June Pride Month proclamation after extended public comment

The Central Union High School District Board of Trustees voted Tuesday, June 24, 2025, to approve Resolution 062425-33 proclaiming the month of June as LGBTQIA+ Pride Month for the district.

The vote followed a two-hour public-comment session during which about 26 people, limited to 90 seconds each, addressed the board. Supporters described the proclamation as a low-cost way to signal inclusion and safety for LGBTQIA+ students; opponents said recognition should not single out any group and raised concerns about schools' role in conversations about identity.

The board's action came after sustained public testimony from students, parents, teachers and local advocacy organizations. Rene Mendez, an English teacher and Central alumnus, told the trustees the resolution’s language “states that when it comes to our LGBTQ plus population, we're committed to safety, inclusion, to fostering a welcoming school climate where they can be treated with dignity, respect, and feel safe. I honestly don't understand how anyone could object to this language.” Clara Olivas, cofounder and executive director of Queer CASA, said her organization formed to “empower, support, and uplift queer people in Imperial County” and urged passage.

Local youth and service providers also spoke in favor. Atlas, bilingual youth programs coordinator at Trans Family Support Services, warned of recent federal changes to youth resources and said state law requires schools to respect students’ names, pronouns and access to facilities consistent with their gender identity. Benjamin Gonzales, a recent district graduate, said recognition affects students’ mental health: “Excellence is not erasing others who are different than us,” he said, arguing that nonrecognition can leave students feeling unprotected.

Speakers opposing the resolution cited concerns about singling out a group or placing matters they consider personal into school policy. Rosa Diaz, who identified herself as having worked with LGBTQIA+ students and as a community center leader, told the board she has seen students change how they identify over time, and urged caution in formal recognitions. Several parents and religiously affiliated speakers said conversations about identity should be handled within families.

Trustees discussed the measure before taking a roll-call vote. The minutes reflect that the resolution was brought back for consideration after it failed to receive a second at a prior meeting. Trustee comments during debate noted that district policies on harassment and bullying already apply to all students, and some trustees said they preferred equal enforcement of existing policies rather than a distinct proclamation. Trustee Tavares asked that the record include an additional ask — directing the superintendent to send a letter on sports participation rules to the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) — a proposal discussed during the meeting record.

The board proceeded to a recorded vote; the motion passed. The transcript records Trustee Ellis voting no and Trustee Mora voting yes; the full roll-call text in the meeting record shows the motion carried.

The proclamation is symbolic and does not change district code or create new policy language; supporters said its value is signaling commitment to student safety and inclusion, while opponents said the district’s existing anti-bullying and nondiscrimination policies already provide protection. Several speakers asked the board to follow the proclamation with concrete supports—expanded counseling, crisis resources and reaffirmed protections—topics several trustees said would be handled through ongoing programs and future agenda items.

Context: The resolution was placed back on the agenda after not receiving a second at a previous meeting, producing a larger turnout of speakers. Public-comment rules were adjusted for this meeting (90-second limit per speaker, board policy 1313 referenced during opening announcements). Speakers referenced state statutes (AB 1266 and SB 537 were cited by commenters as California law addressing student rights and protections) and national trends affecting youth services (commenters referenced a change in the federal 988 crisis hotline structure). The meeting record shows the board later closed the meeting and, in closed session, approved a positive evaluation for Superintendent Dr. Farkas.

Votes at a glance: See the separate “Votes at a glance” article for a full list of motions and outcomes recorded at the June 24 meeting.