Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Monroe board schedules special session to hear Title IX appeal; trustees debate legal role and processes
Summary
Trustees scheduled a special meeting to hear an appeal related to a Title IX determination and agreed to listen without debate, gather clarifying questions for the president to pass to presenters, and have the district attorney prepare a written opinion for closed‑session review before a final disposition at the June 23 board meeting.
Board leaders finalized plans for a special meeting where attorneys representing a party that disputes a Title IX-related determination will present their case to the board. The board agreed that the presenters (attorney Mr. Thompson and his clients) will be given uninterrupted time to state their arguments; trustees will record clarifying questions and submit them to the board president to ask during the session. The district attorney (Jeremy) will prepare a legal opinion and the board will review it in closed session on June 15 or 16, followed by any formal disposition at the June 23 board meeting.
"We're going to listen to you," said the board president during the work session, describing the format the administration and legal counsel recommended. Several trustees pushed back on using the meeting to make a Title IX legal determination themselves, stressing that federal Title IX findings are outside the board's scope and that any legal positions raised should be handled by counsel and reflected in a formal opinion. Others argued the board's complaint/appeal policy (Board policy 2260) requires the board to meet with concerned parties and issue a disposition, and they favored following that policy's steps while limiting trustee remarks during the presentation.
Trustees discussed practical matters for the special meeting, including public-comment time, potential media presence and the need for security or a resource officer if tensions rise. The board settled on an opening statement clarifying that it will hear the presentation without public debate, have legal counsel capture any legal issues raised, and that any formal board action or vote will occur at a subsequent public meeting after legal advice and internal discussion.
The special session is set for the next day as a guaranteed 1‑hour hearing window, with the formal disposition and any vote expected at the June 23 board meeting after closed‑session review of counsel's opinion.
