Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Lgbtq topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and residents press Osseo board over LGBTQ programming and district communications
Summary
Several residents used the public-comment period to criticize recently held LGBTQ-focused programming, citing poor communication, objectionable materials, and calls to sunset the district's gender inclusion policy; speakers asked the board to prioritize academic proficiency and parental notification.
Multiple residents addressed the Independent School District 279 board during the June 23 public-comment period to criticize recent LGBTQ programming, question district messaging, and call for policy changes.
Leandra Trotter, a district parent, said communication about May programming was "poor and lacking," said she received only a vague text message and that nearly a thousand parents opted out. "Our children are not a social experiment," she said, and requested that board members be held accountable for any repercussions she linked to programming.
Resident Natalie Sonic, speaking as a Christian taxpayer, urged schools to avoid promoting ideological viewpoints on sexuality and gender identity and argued the district should "remain neutral on deeply contested moral and religious questions," citing specific coloring pages distributed at a middle-school event.
Dr. Bret Stussy, a district resident, asked the board to redirect focus toward academic performance, noting the district's reported 85.4% graduation rate in 2025 while pointing to 50% 10th-grade reading proficiency and 30% 11th-grade math proficiency. He urged the board to consider sunsetting Policy 508 (gender inclusion) and the district's LGBTQ+ history and culture resolution.
Maria Kivine described feeling personally offended by a coloring page that framed Western European same-sex relationships in a negative historical light and urged careful review of materials to avoid marginalizing people of faith.
Board members listened to the public comments during the audience-opportunity segment and did not take immediate action on the requests; staff and board members previously discussed related policies in work sessions, and the record shows the board received the comments for consideration.
The public-comment speakers raised factual claims (opt-out counts, descriptions of materials) and normative arguments (requests to remain neutral, to prioritize academics). The board did not respond with new policy action during the meeting; next steps would depend on board or staff follow-up outside the meeting record.
