I want to just remind parents of children in SD76, that what is happening at the Rocklin Academy School is exactly how currently written procedures in SD76 would handle a similar incident in SD76. There is no age appropriateness set in SD76, and therefor there is no clemency for young children who may find themselves afoul of the ludicrous assertion that they have bullied a fellow 6 year old if they ‘misgender’ them.
The Secretary and the Board have made it very clear through the petition process that the letter of the law is the standard by which they judge, not the intent or the purpose.
This article shows EXACTLY what David Eggen has asked all school districts to allow. SD76 has written in black and white both policy and procedure to permit this to go on in Medicine Hat. This is the essence of what the CPoSD76 are fighting. What this teacher did in California is the very definition of Sexual Interference and Abuse. As policy is written right now in SD76, it would be allowed, even encouraged, and there is nothing that you as a parent would be allowed to do about it. Not even if 2500 of you signed a petition wishing to express your concern. THAT is why the CPoSD76 are considering taking SD76 back to court. If your elected representative doesn’t care to hear from 1/3 to 1/2 of those who would vote in an election, you have a SERIOUS democratic and human rights issue on your hands.
When a block of voters the size of those that signed the petition circulated by the CPoSD76 are being ignored, it evidentially shows that “Children First” does not mean what you think it means. “Children First” means ripping children out from under parental oversight and authority, and either placing them under the ‘care’ of unqualified admin who think it is their right to traumatize children with deeply disturbing adult cultural trends, or asking these immature, undeveloped children how they think they should be educated. “Children First” means the children are in charge.
Your authority as a parent is under attack. Not just in Alberta, at a provincial level, but at a district level. For all the talk of ‘meeting’ with concerned parents;
SD76 has had 18 months to clarify these issues, and we have seen none. Sure I might have been told one or two answers personally, but according to CHAT and SD76’s Chairman, I’ve defamed them, so why would they make it my job to inform parents of what their position is. Again, according to them, I can’t accurately convey their position. Besides, aren’t public statements the Chairman’s job?
Way back in March 2016 I referred to the study undertaken in Sweden that is mentioned in the above link. I even told Trustees in SD76 about it. The response? Crickets. When I say Policy 622 endorses abuse, I mean it. Pushing Transgenderism on children, and forcing School Staff to accept it unquestionably, is without a doubt, child abuse. Death is a real probable outcome to lying to a child that they can change their gender. To promote such a policy, and to refuse to acknowledge the risks, or hear counter arguments is, like I said, the very definition of bigotry. Anti-bullying policies are laudable, but they must prevent bullying of all types, and can not dictate a forced acceptance of reckless and dangerous behaviours or believes. In such a case, the bullied become the bully and adherence is out of fear, not acceptance or understanding. Is that what we want our children to learn? To fear those that are different to them? Policies like 622 are not combating ‘transphobia,’ they are creating it. Except it isn’t an irrational fear, it is a justified fear that any wrong pronoun used, or out of context comment can ruin your life, as the LGBT™ inquisition will come down on you without mercy, compassion, logic, or reason. They will come and beat you into submission through school district endorsed courts of ‘social justice’. They will label you for the rest of your life as an LGBT™ ‘hater,’ make you take ‘sensitivity’ training at re-education centers, and exclude you from any prestigious higher education. These are not exaggerations, these are actions that have actually been taken against people who question the LGBT™. You have to look no further than the ridiculous accusations against me by the media. Any and all resistance must be silenced with extreme prejudice. Let’s get back to the table, and discuss a policy that provides real direction and protection for ALL children from ALL kinds of bullying.
June 7, 2017 Rick Massini Board Chair Medicine Hat School District 76 601 1 Ave. S.W. Medicine Hat, AB T1A 4Y7
An open letter to the Board of Trustees of Medicine Hat School District #76
Dear Rick Massini,
For the past 15 months the Concerned Parents of SD76 have indicated to the Board our concerns over the wording and procedures for SD76’s policy 621 and 622. In February 2016, when more than 20 people showed up for the February Board meeting, Trustees made note of the unusually large crowd. In the months that followed, that crowd size only increased, and that gave significant indication to the Board that those parents had growing concerns, that were not resolved.
In March 2016, through the presentations of four different delegations, parents made clear the broad nature of their concerns. Parents continued to share yet more concerns with the board after the March 2016 Special meeting to pass 621 & 622. Throughout that meeting no one engaged in bullying or harassment. Parents simply had questions and concerns that they did not feel had been answered in the policies. Parents were then promised a Town Hall, where by they could express those concerns, and ask their questions.
Both parents and electorate were deeply disappointed when it was revealed to them in May of 2016 that they would not have a Town Hall, but instead a meeting restricted to small group discussions with other parents. Discussions where no questions could be asked of the Trustees, and no answers would be provided. Parents were in fact given the questions that they were to answer.
Parents and electorate, then feeling snubbed and condescended to, understood that they had no other recourse but to utilize Section 269 of the School act, to submit a petition calling for a public meeting. Section 269 of the Alberta School Act had never been utilized before in SD76, and had rarely been drawn on in other districts of Alberta. A section specifically designed to allow parents and electorate to force a Board to be held to account by the public, when they feel they have no other recourse.
Parents didn’t just want to drop cards into a suggestion box. They wanted to have answers to clear inconsistencies with the policies and the recommended guidelines coming from Alberta Education. When the Secretary rejected the petition in September 2016 and refused to give clarifications, stating that he was not going to “spend any more time on this,” it was clear that the matter had to go to the courts; in order to get a fair hearing.
The only way for the signatories to get the clarification that they were refused, was to appeal as was their right under the School Act. By following the process under the law, parents and electorate were able to obtain 4 key clarifications, that otherwise would have been unobtainable: the Secretary was forced to provide the clarifications he had previously refused to give; the matter of the signatures that only had postal codes was firmly resolved, with the Justice stating that the parents had a “reasonable interpretation” to expect them to be accepted, despite ultimately being told they needed to be completed/corrected; precedence was established to state that if a petition seeks to be evaluated for the “25% of the parents in a school” clause, then school information needs to be given by the signatories; most importantly the districts lawyer informed the Justice that our petition could be amended to correct deficiencies and that there was no time limit, with the Justice even referencing those statements in paragraph 18 of his ruling. Justice Tilleman also made it clear during the appeal that the petition was the property of the submitter, and that it should be returned to them upon request.
In the weeks following Justice Tilleman’s decision, parents in SD76 have diligently set about to correct the deficiencies outlined by the Justice. In doing so, 300 new signatures have been obtained thus far, and a substantial number of the ‘postal code’ signatures have been corrected. There is an expectation that an amended petition would meet the requirements under the School Act; to call a public meeting as outlined on the petition. Parents and electorate of SD76 are at a junction, and we are offering to let the Board choose the path taken.
Since the Board decided to pursue a Bill of Costs from Mr. Williamson, the Parents decided that they would not seek to have the board attend a Concerned Parents of SD76 group meeting. The Parents do not believe that a concern by the chair of the Board over “setting a precedent” was sufficient justification to pursue costs. The now 2300+ tax paying electorate who have signed the petition do not think it was a waste of their tax dollars to call a public meeting, nor do they feel it was a waste of their time to force the clarifications via appeal that had been refused by the Secretary. The entire process could have been avoided had the Board simply been willing to have official interactive dialogue with concerned parents.
At this point, considering the position that SD76 has taken, there are only two possible paths forward: Amend the petition and have the process proceed under the School Act, with all the formal procedures that accompany that; or, work with the Board to see an agreeable formal interactive meeting between concerned parents and the Board.
The Parents understand that the Board have some concerns with security and conduct at such a meeting. Parents do not wish to see such a meeting hijacked by activists, lobby groups, or media frenzy any more than the Board does. The Parents are willing to work out a format with the board that would see both parties concerns mitigated, as long as such a meeting would see both the policy concerns of the parents and the responses of the Board to those concerns recorded into the public record.
We respectfully request that the Board provide an answer as to how they would like to proceed by June 12th, 2017.
The Concerned Parents of Medicine Hat School District #76