We wish we could say we were surprised that the repeal of 5756 passed first read last Monday, but if you have been paying attention, you knew this was coming. BOE member Purcell even asked a few months ago if it could be brought up over and over until they got “what they wanted.”  

Last Monday’s BOE meeting was the first read to repeal. What was particularly interesting was that BOE member Scheneck mentioned that the policy had not been brought up in the policy committee, in fact the last policy committee meeting had been canceled by the committee chair (BOE member Mildre) due to “there being no items for discussion.” It seems the repeal of this policy was not even mentioned to committee members or other board members before being put on the agenda.  It seems like policy chair BOE member Milde is also being less than transparent… ironic since transparency was part of his campaign when he ran for BOE. BOE member Scheneck also mentioned that she felt the newly elected BOE members were not being transparent to their supporters, in explaining that repealing this policy will not change the laws it is based on.

She mentioned that the concerns brought up by community members previously, were about them disliking the NJ Law Against Discrimination (LAD) specifically. It is misleading to suggest that repealing this policy will change those things, for example, a transgender student will still be able to use the bathroom of their identified gender. Another issue is that BOE members have suggested that school staff should notify parents about gender identity, which is also a violation of the LAD. Repealing the policy simply puts the district at risk of litigation should a student claim they were discriminated against, when the district does not even have a policy on the books to explain how they deal with those situations. This policy is simply an outline for staff to follow the law. Taking the policy away does NOT change the laws. BOE member Scheneck referenced this article written by an attorney regarding this policy.

BOE member Purcell stated that she felt BOE member Scheneck may be trying to intimidate the public regarding this topic, specifically that she did not agree that the board had not been transparent regarding the possible legal repercussions of repealing this policy.

BOE member Botero reported that “the subject matter experts” have given the board guidance, and that he is choosing to follow that guidance. He felt it made sense to wait for the litigation in other districts to be resolved to see what the outcome is before making a decision. We are unsure who the experts are he refers to, but it is public knowledge that BOE member Scheneck is a lawyer, so we would imagine she may understand the legal ramifications of removing this policy.

BOE president Coakley agreed that the laws remain in place despite repealing this policy.

BOE member Milde, agreed that “the law is the law,” but then stated that the policy provides too much latitude for individuals to interpret their own way, and make decisions, that may put more kids in harm’s way than the opposite. He suggested that keeping the policy in place leaves too much room for people who may want to “do the wrong thing.”  We would have to disagree, since it seems what he is saying is in regard to notifying parents, the only way to take away any “latitude” would be for a mandatory parental notification policy, which is exactly what Hanover did, and what caused them to be sued by the Attorney General. 

Purcell stated that she feels the policy is more dangerous to the kids [than repealing the policy].

BOE President Coakley then clarified that the policy is verbatim from the guidance from the state that will become the standard when the policy is abolished. He explained that nothing will change, other than the board is giving up its position and telling the superintendent to “field the ball” with the staff.

BOE member Purcell responded, “I wish I could trust that,” and went on to say, “I don’t trust it, I don’t trust the system. I don’t trust the people that are making these decisions against the individual children. I just don’t trust them.”

We find it very concerning that BOE member Purcell seems to distrust what appears to be the  school district? Teachers? If were teachers in this district we certainly would not appreciate the way some BOE members spoke about staff. NONE of the newly elected board members spoke on the issue.

They then voted and the first read to repeal passed 6-4

Mr. Leo Coakley – No

Mr. Christopher Milde – Yes

Mrs. Anne Colucci – Yes

Ms. Valerie Galderi – Yes

Ms. Sharon MacGregor-Nazzaro – Yes

Mr. Camilo Bonilla – Yes

Mrs. Kathy Purcell – Yes  

Ms. Carol Scheneck – No

Mr. Brian Staples – No

Mr. Edwin Botero – No

Then came public comment, a local M4L first claimed she would not provide her address due to having received threats from the teacher’s union. She then brought up policy – 9712 – Distribution of Publications on School Grounds, which as we are sure many could guess, was used to try to create a false equivalency between it, and BOE policies for library books. The policy she shared is about material distributed directly to students. Library books are not handed out to all students. It’s not the same thing.

She then also stated that “we had over 6 minutes of our time wasted, listening to a sitting board member lie, insult other board members, insult members of the public, so maybe you think twice before discussing your code of ethics from here on out.”

This is a perfect example of typical M4L behavior, name calling, finger pointing, misinformation, etc. It seems clear this person is referring to BOE member Scheneck, and it is quite  predictable for a M4L member to call someone they disagree with a liar. Especially someone with actual legal expertise.

Then came the local M4L vice chair, here is what she had to say-

“That was quite a dramatic display of legal fear tactics on a community that only wants what’s best for all of our children. it doesn’t scare any of us though.  What’s going on in this world is far scarier Ms. Scheneck and we will continue to stand between our children and you. One thing you forgot to mention is that parents are the experts in their own children.  Having a policy that supports driving a wedge between a child and their parent is dangerous and contradicts best practice.  No school staff member should be discussing a minor child’s gender dysphoria with them without the knowledge or consent of their parent. I may be the only person in this room actually qualified and has experienced treating transgender minors.  Believe it or not, regardless of how heartbreaking it is for a parent to hear about their child’s inner struggle, they are still the best person to be leading their child’s care.  Starting secret conversations in school with minors and allowing staff members to influence a child’s identity is dangerous and has proven to lead these students down to the path of sterilization and mutilation. Funny you didn’t mention the lawsuits parents have against school districts for socially transitioning their children in secret. It’s happening all over the country, one very solid case in New Jersey. bottom line these are our children we are the parents and we have the right to be in the driver’s seat when it comes to their education emotional and physical well-being. thank you to all the board members who respect our God-given and constitutional right to direct the upbringing of our own children goodnight”

This dramatic speech continues to spin a narrative claiming that teachers are not to be trusted and infers that there is an intent to “keep secrets.” This policy does not “drive a wedge” between parents and children. As has been explained repeatedly, it does not prevent schools from speaking with parents. It simply does not mandate it in cases that a child may be unsafe. We have no idea what qualifications she has to be such an “expert,” but we would imagine she’s aware that therapists are also legally prohibited from outing children to their parents. While we can appreciate the sentiment that “parents are the experts in their own children,” what about the 1 in 8 children that have parents suffering from substance use disorders? 1 in 4 that are victims of abuse or neglect?  Are those parents experts? Should those parents’ “parental rights” trump the safety of the children?  Are children young people? Or are they property? Any why, if you are the expert on YOUR child, are you trying to dictate what happens with EVERY child?

We will say it again, if you are concerned that your child may not tell you these things, then focus on being the type of parent your child can speak to, and let them know they are loved unconditionally! 

In regard to the lawsuits she speaks of… the two we have read about seem unlikely to go anywhere.  One case is Short vs the Department of Education, which is still working its way through the legal system. Our understanding is that Mr. Short has not been affected by this policy in anyway, and has no transgender children. Therefore, we are unsure of what his standing is to sue. A similar lawsuit was thrown out at the federal level, due to the parents involved not having been affected in any way by these policies. They had no legal standing. 

Another is a case in which a parent sued in Hunterdon county when their child requested to be referred to by a different name and pronouns at school. That parent claims that they found out about this when another student called their child by their preferred name. The parent claims the child is in therapy and should not be allowed to socially transition per that therapist. That information, if true, was admittedly not shared with the school. No proof that a medical professional said that was shared in the lawsuit.

Speaking of lawsuits, these two women haven’t spoken at BOE meetings in a while. It seems interesting that they chose to now, at the same time they are pushing for donations for their own legal fees. 

Stay tuned…

Next BOE meeting is April 15th, when they will vote on the second reading for repeal of policy 5756.