Residents urge board to drop lawsuits and pursue locker-room solutions; board says individual suits are pro bono
Loading...
Summary
Several residents criticized the board for recurring litigation (mascot, bathroom-related cases) and urged transparency on legal spending and facility-based solutions for student privacy; a board response stated the district is not paying for personal lawsuits and that cited suits are being handled pro bono.
An extended public-comment period centered on district litigation and student privacy, with multiple residents urging the board to pause costly lawsuits and pursue facility-based solutions such as privacy dividers or alternative changing spaces.
Mr. Eber opened the topic by alleging repeated, expensive lawsuits (including the mascot case) had cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars and that some filings were dismissed; he urged the board to "drop your lawsuit." He said the board27s filings had been dismissed and questioned whether public funds were being used to support private litigation.
The board president responded directly: "This school district is not paying for personal, lawsuits. ... Her suits are pro bono. So that there is not being paid for by the school district. We could not do that. That would not be legal." That response was given in public comment and framed as a clarification rather than a detailed accounting of legal expenses.
Other speakers echoed calls for transparency and a change of approach. Erin Curley said the board27s actions were "illegal" and harmful to children of different gender identities and urged the district to focus on empathy and inclusive policies. Bobby Bonet urged the board to provide transparency around legal spending and to step back from political entanglements. Dr. Joe Prisanzano asked the board to debate tangible facility solutions (privacy dividers, temporary/permanent changing-room options) rather than litigate.
Why it matters: the comments touch on both budgetary oversight and student well-being. Residents framed litigation as a diversion of taxpayer funds away from classrooms and asked the board to prioritize local solutions that directly address student privacy and comfort.
Next steps: the board reiterated it would not discuss legal strategy in public and said follow-up on legal spending and potential facility changes would be noted for later administrative or committee work.
