This just in--there's a recall petition with a website. The organization is called for ALL Children Westminster Recall Committee
PO BOX 1212
Westminster, CA 92684
What would you do if you were a parent in this district? Three school board members are refusing to comply with California state law, thus losing state support for their district--somewhere between 5% to 40% of the total budget. The board members claim conscience.
Here's the short version: In 2000, California passed a law which allows individuals to determine their gender, regardless of biological gender. That law includes students and staff at public schools. The passage of the law meant that public school districts were required to examine the districts' discrimination policies, so that gender issues were addressed in the policies.
One public school district in California has a 5 member board, and three of the five members are refusing to go along with the gender discrimination reassessment, in face of huge pressure from the other board members, staff, and parents.
Westminster is a k-8 district serving about 10,000 kids. There are 5 school board members. (About 100 (or 1%) of the district is African-American; a third is Asian, more than a third is Hispanic, and about a quarter are Caucasian. The board doesn't appear to be particularly representative of the student population.)
Trustees Judy Ahrens, Helena Rutkowski, and Blossie Marquez-Woodcock have said the law affronts their Christian beliefs, and they refuse to vote to alter the discrimination guidelines to comply with the new state law. (Oh, oops, but they, as part of their oaths of office, swore to uphold the laws of California. I guess they crossed their fingers.)
Many parents, as well as advocacy groups in favor of the new gender definitions, have expressed frustration over the board members' stance, with one parent contending that "They are going to risk our children's education for their own personal convictions." District lawyers will discuss the possible consequences at a meeting on April 1, but school board president James Reed is not optimistic:
The frustrating part is that I can't seem to get them to see that this is about the law.... I can understand that they have intense emotional concerns about this, but that does not change the fact that we must be in compliance with the law.
There's a lot at stake: the district's budget is about $68 million per year; refusing to comply with the state law gives the state the right to withhold money for programs serving low-income or English-learning students. The amount could be as high as $40 million, although it appears the risk is subtantially less. Still, our school districts are all feeling the pinch. I imagine if I were a parent in the district, I'd be yelling impeachment or recall
The last scheduled meeting was April 1, 2004. Despite hundreds of loud and angy parents demanding that the school board change its mind, the three trustees refused to reverse their votes. There is a further April 12 deadline set by the state.
Because of the stance by three trustees, the state has threatened to withhold money that funds programs for low-income, English-learning and primary-grade students, district administrators said Friday.
Ahrens, Marquez-Woodcock and Rutkowski said changing the district's policy, which currently defines "gender" only as a person's biological sex, would be immoral because it might encourage transsexual behavior in schools.
Adopting the new definition of "gender" will help further erode family values, which have already been attacked this year with the flood of same-sex marriages and even the Janet Jackson breast- bearing incident at the Super Bowl, Rutkowski and Ahrens said.
"It's time to say enough is enough," Ahrens said. "This lethal 'perceived sex' wording could further jeopardize families in Westminster."
With this new definition, "we create protected groups that will shove their lifestyle down our throats," Rutkowski said. "A person can be anything that they wish to be, but I don't need to accept their behavior. I will do everything to protect the students from this mindset."
The following is from the Santa Rosa PRess Democrat (also a conservative area), from the "school web".
"Everyone always wants to fix things tomorrow. Well, I'm saying the time is ripe now," said board member Judy Ahrens. "I might take a lot of heat for it today, but the rewards are going to be great in heaven."
Westminster is the only district in the state that has hesitated to update its anti-discrimination policies, said Gary Page, the Education Department official who reviewed Westminster.
The district's code also does not explicitly protect gay students and staff from discrimination, but the board has yet to discuss that part of the state code in depth.
The following is from Worldnet Daily, which is a religous/conservative web site. The article paraphrases some of the LA Times reporting.
"I can't, with a clear conscience ... vote for this trash," Marquez-Woodcock declared at an early February board meeting, the Times reported. At that meeting Marquez-Woodcock and her like-minded colleagues voted down the state's wording.
The California Department of Education then conducted a review and directed the district to approve the state language at an emergency meeting on Feb. 26. The board majority refused.
An April 12 deadline looms. If the board does not adopt the state wording by then, it opens itself up to formal complaints from anyone challenging the policy, as well as a lawsuit from the state and possible loss of funding.
The following is from Indymedia (the whole text of the LA Times report on the 4/1 meeting is also posted at that site):
Carolina, of Indymedia reported
I attended the 4/1 meeting, which audience overflowed so that many had to listen from an amphithetre next door.
The three recalictrant transgender-hating board majority of Judy Ahrens, Helena Rutkowski and Blossie Marquez-Woodcock ignored the pleas of 90% of the speakers- 2 hours in length at 1 minute a piece, including parents, union leaders, teachers and administrators.
Most of the audience inside booed the few who supported the 3 member trans-phobic junta .
Some angry residents served two of the members with recall petitions.
When the vote came finally at about 9:45 pm the Board was so confused it did not even understand what motions they were voting on, despite repeated attempts by frustrated staff, including the District's superintendant and lawyer to explain parliamentary procedure.
The three even voted down a request to ask the State for an extension of time to revise their non-compliant policy, even thoug the staff assured them the State was willing to grant such extension.
From the LA Times article (quoted in full in the Indymedia site, probably because of the Times' annoying registration policy):
The overflow crowd of more than 900 that packed the auditorium at Stacey Middle School was overwhelmingly opposed to the majority's stance. For almost two hours, the stone-faced trustees sat onstage and endured a barrage of criticism, calls for their resignation and pleas to change their vote.
"How dare you use my son as a shield for your discrimination, your fear and your hatred?" said Donna Scott, a parent of one student.
Her sentiments were echoed by parent David Labinger: "You on the board are all entitled to hold whatever personal religious beliefs that you desire, but to endanger an entire school district because of those personal beliefs goes against the values you purport to uphold."
The following is the complete text of the article written by Joel Rubin, and has background material on the three board members who are defying the law.
Backgrounder article from the LA Times published March 29, 2004, written by Joel Rubin
After she was finally elected to the board of the Westminster School District, Judy Ahrens fought most of her battles alone, and with little effect.
No one joined her, for instance, when she opposed funding for the Westminster School District's preschools or questioned the use of district money for private lessons for severely disabled students. Her stand against state funding for technology in classrooms was a solo effort and she failed to convince others that the district's drug abuse awareness program was a waste of money.
So when Ahrens voted to defy a state anti-discrimination law at a school board meeting last month — as she had promised during her campaign two years earlier — she was stunned that two other trustees agreed with her. So surprised, in fact, that Ahrens removed her glasses to wipe tears from her eyes after the vote by what constituted a majority on the five-member board.In that defining moment, Ahrens, Blossie Marquez-Woodcock and Helena Rutkowski thrust Westminster into an unfamiliar spotlight. It is the only school district in California to refuse to revise its discrimination complaint policy to comply with state gender law. The law allows students and school staff to define their own gender, regardless of their biological sex, to prevent discrimination against transsexuals and others who do not conform to traditional gender roles.
Invoking their religious beliefs, the three trustees — one a Catholic, one Lutheran and the third a nondenominational Christian chaplain — said they were offended by the law and have refused to waver on what, they argue, is a key moral stance.
"According to the people who are angry at us, there is a price on morality," Ahrens, 58, said. "I say: 'Our kids are not for sale.' What price do you put on morality?"
The trustees' position, if not reversed, would expose the district to lawsuits and could ultimately jeopardize as much as $40 million in state and federal funding. Bank of America announced last week that it was halting a $16-million loan to the district until it could evaluate the effect the board's stance could have on the district's financial security.
Leading Quiet Lives
Until now, the three trustees have led relatively quiet political and personal lives.
Each has enrolled children in district schools, which serve 10,000 students in kindergarten through eighth grade. Ahrens, however, removed her son after the sixth grade, saying she was dissatisfied with the level of instruction. She sent him to a parochial high school to avoid "all the social engineering that happens in public schools, like sex education."
Polish-born Rutkowski, 66, came to the United States as a child and describes herself as a devout Catholic. An architect's widow who worked part time as a teacher's assistant, she is completing her eighth year on the school board.
Marquez-Woodcock, 51, a chaplain who ministers to the terminally ill, was appointed to the board in 2000 to fill a vacancy, and was elected in 2002. She declined to be interviewed.
Ahrens, the widow of an aerospace engineer, previously ran a small after-school tutoring program. She described herself as a devout Lutheran.
Ahrens joined the board in 2002, placing third in a five-candidate race for three seats, after having lost in two previous board elections.
Ahrens and Rutkowski accepted campaign donations from the Family Action Political Action Committee, a conservative family-issues-based advocacy group.
The trio's unbending stance on the anti-discrimination law has frustrated other district officials and infuriated many, who accuse them of placing their personal beliefs ahead of their duty to uphold state law.
The Westminster Teachers Assn. has denounced their decision and plans to demonstrate outside the board's meeting Thursday, according to union President Janet Brubaker. A group of parents has announced a recall effort.
Perhaps the harshest critic has been school board President James Reed: "If you are an advocate of public education, what possible justification could you have for saying this [funding] is not important? They are being bigoted against these protected classes because they don't like them."
Reed expressed surprise that Marquez-Woodcock and Rutkowski had aligned themselves with Ahrens. Reed depicted Ahrens as an unqualified trustee who has repeatedly violated district policies by arriving unannounced for campus inspections and making public statements on behalf of the district.
"My view is that she is doing everything she can to be disruptive and detrimental to the district," Reed said. "I do not think she should be a board member."
Ahrens dismisses her critics and accuses the district of using the possible funding loss as part of "a campaign of scare tactics" to deceive district parents.
After consistently finding herself at odds with the rest of the board, Ahrens said, she felt validated by prevailing on the gender vote. Long opposed to the state gender law, Ahrens campaigned against it as "anti-family" and promised to contest it if elected. After so many defeats on other issues, she said, it was that much more satisfying to prevail this time.
"I feel like I've been a black sheep," said Ahrens. "I was so surprised. I couldn't believe that when I said this was a question of morality versus economics, that two others agreed with me."
Rutkowski is no stranger to confronting religious issues.
In an interview, she described the district teachers union as a "communist" group that is "against any mention of God" and which has infused the district with a decidedly anti-Christian bias.
In 2000, at Rutkowski's urging, the district purchased more library books on various religions to balance what she said was an over-representation of Judaism in the classroom. And during her two terms as trustee, Rutkowski has called repeatedly for spring vacation to be scheduled just before Easter, so Christian students can more easily observe the rites of Holy Week.
"I am not here to promote Christianity or my beliefs," Rutkowski said, "but I will stand up to people when they ignore what I believe."
Despite the opposition, all three said they believe their values represent those of the majority of Westminster parents. And they are not without their vocal supporters.
"I want my children to grow up with certain standards and religious beliefs," said Cheryl Walker, mother of two Westminster students. "It is purely spin that the district says these three are not doing their jobs…. I'm glad they are courageous enough to take this stand."
Deadline Approaching
According to state education officials, Westminster is the only district to balk at updating its anti-discrimination policy to conform with the state mandate. The district has until April 12 to reverse its decision without penalty. If it fails to do so, education lawyers said it would be vulnerable to a lawsuit by anyone wanting to challenge its policy.
The California Department of Education also has the authority to withhold some or all of the state and federal funding of a district that fails to comply with state laws.
All three indicated that they have no intention of changing their minds this week. Bracing for a large turnout, district officials have changed the venue to an auditorium at Stacey Middle School.
For Ahrens, it promises to be another emotional night. Reflecting on her tears after the first vote, she said: "What does it say about me? It shows that I am passionate about what I feel is right."
The following is a column by Dana Parsons, published in the LA Times March 14, 2004.
Trustees Ignore the Public's Trust
Joan of Arc they ain'tThat is, there's nothing particularly heroic about the Three Unwise Women of Westminster who seem to have forgotten that the only master they've been elected to serve is the electorate of a public school district. Whom they choose to serve on their own time is up to them.
Invoking religious beliefs, the three Westminster School District trustees have refused to sign off on an updated district policy that reflects a state anti-discrimination law. Their refusal jeopardizes as much as $40 million in state and federal funding.
I wonder if the employees and 10,000 students in the K-8 district will laud their courage if the money dries up.
Beats me, but what I do know is that the women, who are a majority on the five-member board, have committed a couple of sins.
One is obvious: risking public funds representing about two-thirds of the district's budget. The other is less obvious: By linking their votes to Christian beliefs, the women do a potential disservice to other religious-minded office-seekers who already have to overcome some voters' concerns that their theology will supersede the public's business.
What makes this more aggravating is that many, many Christian school board members wouldn't have voted as Judy Ahrens, Helena Rutkowski and Blossie Marquez-Woodcock did.
In essence, the district was told to rework the language in its anti-discrimination policy to broaden the definition of gender to mean "a person's actual sex or perceived sex and includes a person's perceived identity, appearance or behavior," even if that is different from their gender at birth.
Convoluted, I know, but it's mostly talking about transsexuals. Assuming there aren't a lot of transsexual fifth-graders in Westminster schools, we're talking about faculty or staff.
Whatever.
I realize that kind of language causes people to roll their eyes and think the world is going to hell in a handbasket. But discrimination is discrimination and — more important, it's the law — and all school board members in California sign an oath to, in so many words, uphold the law.
"I can't with a clear conscience … vote for this trash," Marquez-Woodcock told The Times. I assume she meant including transsexuals in a protected class. Ahrens said, "It's amazing how much we've eroded our society."
She's right, but it's not new. Every generation in American history has said that about the one that followed it. Somehow, we survive. More to the point, the issue isn't about the women casting a "moral" vote to stop social erosion; it's about following the law, as every other district in the state has done.
To show you how wrong the women are, imagine for a moment that all three weren't Christians — but, rather, devout Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims — and invoked their faith as the basis for not endorsing state law. The result would be an instant recall movement. Someone would hasten to tell them that we live in a legalistic society, not a theocracy.
Still, the women have made their point, and I take them at their word that they oppose discrimination but have a problem with granting legal protection for women who think they're men or vice versa. If they insist on remaining true to a higher calling, I salute them. If they must adhere to their principles, their course of action is clear.
I'd suggest they lock arms at the next board meeting and read the following statement: "Our religious beliefs are inviolate, and they apparently now are in conflict with our oath to 'bear true faith and allegiance' to the state Constitution. Because we refuse to renege on our sacred beliefs, we reluctantly resign our positions."
P.S. Westminster School District was cited in another famous anti-discrimination case"
Westminster v. Mendez
Hi, I'm sorry you can't read my page in it's current design. One day of school left then I have time to work on it. Thanks for the feedback!
Posted by: Erin | Tuesday, April 06, 2004 at 11:44 PM