Board directs lobbyist to oppose House Bill 1312 after staff briefing on transgender‑related provisions

At a April 23 work session, the district’s contract lobbyist briefed the board on bills under consideration at the Colorado legislature and on the status of a House bill (referred to in this session as HB 1312) that would expand legal protections for transgender individuals and affect school practices around chosen names, pronouns and dress codes.

Lobbyist Amy Atwood summarized that the state budget was complete and that the School Finance Act was still awaiting final action. She described HB 1312 as amended recently; among other changes, she said language that would have required changes to certain forms was removed, and that several advocacy groups had moved from full support to an amend position, which may weaken the bill’s prospects.

Board discussion and direction Board members raised concerns about parental authority, whether school staff (as mandatory reporters) could be put in conflict, and whether the bill usurped local control. Some board members said they opposed the bill on the grounds it would compel speech and impose state‑level rules on local districts; others counseled caution about moving beyond education‑specific issues. After discussion, the board directed the district lobbyist to register opposition to the bill and to report back to the board on developments.

What the bill would do (as discussed in the session) - Chosen‑name and pronoun provisions: staff said the bill would make unlawful discriminatory conduct that includes repeated use of pronouns or honorifics that conflict with an individual’s gender identity when the speaker was on notice; an earlier requirement in a draft for forms to include chosen names was removed in amendment. - Dress codes: the bill would push districts toward gender‑neutral dress code policies. - Family and custody references: the bill includes language that a court may consider parental treatment of a child’s gender identity when making custody and parenting‑time decisions; lobbyist and legal staff said that language does not itself create a mandatory child‑abuse report obligation for school staff.

Next steps The board asked the lobbyist to oppose the bill and to register the position publicly so the district’s stance would be on record with the secretary of state. Staff said they will return with updates if amendments or committee action change the bill’s text.

Speakers quoted in this article are drawn from the board work session transcript and include only persons identified in that discussion.