Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Policy Title Ix topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Winneconne school board keeps new Title IX policy but votes to strip gender‑identity language
Summary
After extensive public comment, the Winneconne Community School District board declined to remove its newly adopted Title IX policy (No. 2264) but voted 6–1 to amend it by striking references to gender identity, gender stereotyping and gender nonconformance; the board heard legal guidance that removing the policy entirely could hinder its defenses in future lawsuits.
The Winneconne Community School District Board of Education, meeting Aug. 19, 2024 at Winneconne High School Commons, heard more than an hour of public comment before rejecting a motion to remove policy 2264 and then approving an amendment to that policy that removes gender‑identity language.
Board attorney Jeff Lacy told trustees the Department of Education’s 2020 Title IX regulations remain the controlling regulations in Wisconsin unless a court with jurisdiction rules otherwise, and that the recent U.S. Supreme Court order of Aug. 16 did not decide the merits of those regulations. "My role is to tell the board what the law is, not what the law should be," Lacy said, urging caution about dismantling a formal policy the district could use to defend itself in private suits.
The policy at issue, numbered 2264 in board materials, was adopted at the board’s Aug. 5 meeting. Dozens of residents spoke during the evening’s public comment, overwhelmingly focusing on the Title IX changes. Amanda Otto, who identified herself as a Winnet County parent, said her opposition "has nothing to do with ignorance, hate, or bigotry" and framed her concerns around privacy in bathrooms and locker rooms. "Any reasonable person would feel offended and violated if someone of the opposite sex walked in while they were using the bathroom or locker room," she said. Other speakers recounted past incidents they said showed problems with how schools handled student privacy; speakers in favor of inclusion urged training and stronger anti‑bullying supports and cited national resources.
On a motion by Megan Keller to rescind (remove) policy 2264, seconded by Dean Ackman, the board voted and the motion to remove failed; the board recorded a 4–3 result to retain the policy. After discussion about options, a subsequent motion to amend the policy by striking the phrases "gender identity," "gender stereotyping," and "gender nonconformance" passed 6–1, with Keller recorded as the sole dissent.
Lacy and trustees discussed practical consequences of removal versus amendment. Lacy cautioned that removing the policy could leave the district without the procedural framework required by the regulations—timelines, investigatory steps, and notice requirements—making the district's legal position harder to defend and potentially complicating insurance coverage for litigation. He said striking definitional language is one option many districts pursue to narrow exposure while retaining procedural tools.
Board members who supported the amendment said it preserved the district’s ability to investigate and respond to complaints while addressing parental concerns about specific definitional language. Members who opposed removal emphasized the need for clear, compliant policies and warned about the cost and uncertainty of litigation.
The board directed staff and counsel to explore revised language and to return the matter for further discussion; trustees suggested comparing the new policy text with the pre‑Aug. 1 version so the public can see what changed. The board moved on to other business after the vote and later recessed to an executive session on separate personnel and contract items.
What happens next: trustees agreed to continue policy work and review amended language at a future meeting; several members asked for concrete, written questions from residents so staff and counsel can prepare specific answers and comparisons.
