Rocklin Unified board says it will seek legal counsel after CDE action over parent-notification policy

The Rocklin Unified School District board read a prepared statement saying the district is responding to enforcement action by the California Department of Education and that the board majority has directed the superintendent to pursue a pro bono legal services agreement and bring the matter back to the board on May 15 for public consideration. Chair President Soff said the boardis treating the filing as a response to litigation against the district and wants courts to clarify inconsistencies between state and federal law as they relate to parent-notification policies.

The statement and the boarddirection came after public records and media attention about the CDE's findings. Board materials and comments at the meeting referenced "litigation filed on April 23" by the CDE; later public commenters referred to a CDE complaint and subsequent lawsuit as filed in early April. The districtstatement said the board will "continue to focus their time and efforts on student achievement while the courts handle this matter."

Union and community leaders pressed the board for more clarity at the meeting. Travis Majet, RTPA president, said union members and staff are "concerned about what this means for district resources" and questioned the board's decision-making and communication following closed-session discussion. Majet asked whether a pro bono arrangement would still consume district time and attention and whether it would bring additional headlines that could affect students.

Members of local and statewide advocacy and parent groups used the public comment period to make several related claims. PFLAG representatives and parents urged the board to repeal the parental-notification policy, calling it a "forced outing" policy and saying it places LGBTQ+ students at risk. "Please avoid politics. Please teach and protect all of our children," PFLAG speaker Susan Conforti said, urging the board to reconsider the policy.

The boardresponse at the meeting was limited by the constraints of pending litigation. Chair President Soff said she was unable to discuss specifics of closed-session deliberations but reiterated the plan to agendize the legal-services agreement on May 15 so that the matter can be discussed publicly. When asked whether there had been a vote to move forward, staff explained the action reported was a direction by the board majority to the superintendent, not a formal vote; a vote on any legal-services contract is expected when the item is agendized.

What happens next: the board will place the legal-services agreement on the May 15 agenda for public discussion and any subsequent vote. Community members at the meeting urged immediate policy reversal and compliance with CDE corrective directives; the district has said it will follow public process and the courts as the matter proceeds.