Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Title Ix Resolution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tustin Unified board remands Title IX sports resolution to staff and legal counsel after hours of public comment
Summary
After more than an hour of public testimony from parents, students and community groups on a proposed resolution addressing conflicts between Title IX and state law, the Tustin Unified School District board voted to send Resolution 11‑33‑25 to staff and legal counsel for further review; the motion passed with three ayes, one no and one abstention.
The Tustin Unified School District board voted on Nov. 18 to remand Resolution 11‑33‑25 — a proposal addressing potential conflicts between federal Title IX rules and California law regarding participation in school sports — to district staff and its legal counsel for further study before any action is taken.
The motion to refer the resolution for review was made by a board member who asked for staff and counsel to study the measure and was seconded; the vote carried with three members in favor, one opposed and one abstaining. The board president described the next step as remanding the resolution to the superintendent to coordinate the staff and legal review.
Why it mattered: The proposal drew a large public turnout and sharply divided comment. Supporters asked the board to act to preserve what they described as fairness and safety for girls’ sports. Opponents — including parents, students, educators and community organizations — argued the resolution was legally unnecessary in California, could expose the district to litigation, and risked harming transgender students.
At public comment, Amy Connolly, who asked that the resolution be agendized, told the board, “This resolution is not about emotions or feelings. This resolution is about fairness and most of all safety.” Samuel Penrod, vice chair of Lavender Democrats of Orange County, urged rejection and warned of legal risk: “Only Congress can amend Title IX, and Title IX does not require excluding transgender girls,” he said, citing state education code and CIF rules that he said allow participation according to gender identity.
Several speakers who identified as transgender or as parents of transgender children said the measure would have real-world harms. “Around the time similar policies were proposed in my district, students started a bullying campaign,” said Abigail J, who described being targeted after a similar proposal elsewhere in California.
Other community members urged the board to study the issue carefully. At the motion to remand, one trustee voiced support for deeper review and called the public comment “helpful” and “beneficial to hear both sides.” The transcript records the vote outcome as three ayes, one no and one abstention; the abstention was voiced by the member who identified themself in the record as Speaker 35 and the no vote was recorded as Speaker 21 stating, “I vote no.”
What the board did next: The board instructed the superintendent to have the resolution reviewed by staff and legal counsel and to return with findings before any substantive board action. No final policy change or ban was adopted at the Nov. 18 meeting.
The process ahead: The remand means the district’s legal team and staff will prepare a report for the board; the transcript and public speakers repeatedly referenced Title IX, California Education Code provisions, California Code of Regulations (Title 5), and CIF bylaws as part of arguments about legal obligations and potential liabilities.
The meeting also included a broader discussion of ensuring student safety, and multiple trustees emphasized the need for civil discourse and careful, evidence‑based review before any policy decisions affecting students.
