Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Title IX And Legal Affairs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters press RSU 24 over Title IX policy and choice of outside counsel; superintendent notes human-rights response filing
Summary
Three public commenters criticized the district’s recent lawyer selection and urged swift action on Title IX policy; the superintendent said the district’s response to a Maine human-rights complaint will be filed this week and legal proceedings could extend into 2027.
Three members of the public used the meeting’s public-comment period to sharply criticize recent district choices about Title IX legal representation and to press the board to protect students.
Tammy Taylor told the board she was “done waiting,” criticized the district for hiring what she said was a criminal-defense law firm for Title IX work and said the board had been unethical in how it handled a December executive session to select a new lawyer. Taylor named a firm in her remarks and accused board members who supported the decision of lacking integrity.
Tina Porter urged that decisions about gender and identity not be made in schools and called for protections for children in pre-K through 12 programming, saying such matters “should take place at home, not in a classroom or a counselor’s office.” Crystal B also criticized the district’s choice of attorneys and warned the board that continued decisions she views as harmful would prompt public backlash.
Separately in his superintendent’s report, the superintendent said the district’s response to a Maine human-rights complaint will be submitted to county court on Friday and that the outside attorney estimated proceedings could continue into 2027. The superintendent said he would share the attorney engagement letter and noted that the board had been given a report on state-level work on the funding formula.
At the committee level the board’s policy committee advanced an AC-R Title IX alignment policy for a first read. Several trustees raised concerns during the first-read discussion that portions of the proposed policy and overlapping executive orders could expose the district to legal risk or create conflicting compliance obligations; the committee included a reference to the relevant executive order number in the draft for clarification and the board voted to accept the draft for first reading.
Board members urged staff and legal counsel to review the policy language and to bring clarifying edits before a second reading.
