Defiant Trustees to Meet

The three trustees of the Westminster School District who have refused to adopt a state antidiscrimination law for months have called a special board meeting Monday to revise the district policy that does not comply with state law.

It remains unclear, however, if their changes will satisfy state education officials, who have threatened to withhold millions of dollars in funding if Westminster does not adhere to the school-safety law that protects gays as well as transsexuals and others who do not conform to traditional gender roles.

The meeting comes on the day that a deadline set by state education officials expires.

Mark Bucher, the socially conservative lawyer hired unexpectedly last week by the board majority to counsel the district, declined to detail the changes that he would recommend the board make to its discrimination complaint policy.

At issue is the wording in the district policy. In listing groups protected from discrimination, Westminster makes reference to “gender” and no reference to either “sex” or “sexual orientation.” The omissions are important in light of the law that requires all three terms.

The three trustees -- Helena Rutkowski, Judy Ahrens and Blossie Marquez-Woodcock -- have held firm to their stance that the law offends their Christian beliefs because it allows students and teachers to define their genders and would allow transsexuals to promote alternative lifestyles in the classroom.

Westminster is the only district in the state to defy the law, according to state officials.

Bucher said he liked the solution proposed to the board by Westminster City Councilman Kermit Marsh at a school district meeting last week, but declined to confirm that he was recommending it to the trustees. Marsh suggested the district rewrite its definition of gender in a way that prevents those who file discrimination complaints from being able to define their own gender.

California Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, however, has said Westminster would be in compliance only if it included “sex” and “sexual orientation” in its policy.