LGTBQ Committees CVUSD Link
CVUSD has kept the LGTBQ DAC in the classification considered an AD-Hoc committee. Therefore, the school district has (we believe intentionally) kept themselves protected from legal recourse in refusing full disclosure to a parent asking for more detailed information because it does not fall under the Brown Act's transparency laws. This district under Mark McLaughlin has been sued for Brown Act Violations in the past.
https://www.conejousd.org/Page/1669

Link to LQTBQ DAC commitee minutes/meeting agendas.
See limited minutes and agendas here: (go to "BOARD OF EDUCATION" top right corner and scroll down to LGTBQ DAC. This is NOT user friendly, so good luck!

https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/conejo/Board.nsf/Public# 

Sample of upcoming agenda: Petition to change current 4th-6th grade human growth and development curriculum to include LGTBQ "education". Current policy, lead by Lauren Gill Board President, is to have co-ed instruction. BOTH boys and girls watch both videos together. Yes 4th grade girls (9 yo) get to watch a video about boys having "wet dreams." That was a fun dinner topic to explain, thanks to our school board policy! The district has taken public access away from the community as to what is in these new videos. Why?  Brown Act Violation? Are they really being transparent? The community has a right to view the  public board approved curriculum.  

Meeting Date May 22, 2024.pdf
Ad-Hoc committee information
An ad-hoc committee is a committee formed for a short term goal or purpose. We cannot find legal definition of a time frame however the subjective description "short-term" will be up to personal definition at this point. The LGBTQ DAC committee was formed in 2020 by Megan Goebel an LGTBQ activist with children in our district. This committee has been in existence for 4 years with no end in sight.
Please see docs from a parent with district admins attempting to get information from the district on the agendas in the meetings. Ultimately, Kenny Loo Ass.Sup, implied that they do not have to follow the Brown Act for disclosure because they are an Ad-Hoc committee. This is true, Ad-hoc committee's do not have to follow the Brown Act for full public disclosure. We believe this is intentional to hide the full agenda from parents, otherwise why wouldn't they make this committee permanent? You decide deceitful or not?


"School Success Plan" Form to hide gender transition at school from parents / family
https://www.conejousd.org/cms/lib/CA50010930/Centricity/Domain/108/CVUSD%20School%20Success%20Plan%20.pdf

For your children's sake and your fundamental rights PLEASE DO NOT FALL FOR THE LIE that ALL parents are the enemy and secrets must be kept by the schools to protect children. How did we let the school board have the control to discern what we get to know about OUR OWN children. MOST parents are loving and choose to support their children unconditionally. Our entire judicial system is based on the greater good while trying to protect the individual. We do not ignore the fact that there is abuse happening to some children.  There are many policies and resources in place to protect children from abuse of all kinds.

We believe that this form will ultimately be found illegal and cost the district hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.   It assumes families and parents are abusive and not supportive, that violates the 14th amendment, period.
Ventura County Board of Ed trained teachers to hide gender from parents
See Link to power point training here:
https://genderlcgb.substack.com/p/lawyers-train-school-districts-how

Sample of VENTURA county board of Ed to implement KINDERGARDEN - 5th grade Gender Diversity Lessons without parent notification. All parents want is the opportunity to view the material and have a conversation with their child. The board says NO and their community staged influencers call you "transphobes and bigots"
Are CA State Laws Legal under the Constitution?
CA state laws are currently under heavy litigation state wide for violating the Federal laws and regulations including the Constitution. The day after AB1955 was signed there were multiple law suits brought questioning the federal legality. Ultimately, the 14th amendment will be upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.  We will address the legality of these laws soon as the site is under construction.

https://libertyjusticecenter.org/pressrelease/california-school-board-and-district-join-lawsuit-to-stand-up-against-gov-gavin-newsoms-attack-on-parental-rights-through-ab-1955/​​​

One thing to consider, even if the laws ALLOWED schools to hide this information from parents, does that mean they should? Parents at Maple Elementary just wanted to be informed so they could talk to their 8-9 yo children first. That is all folks. They were not asking to stop the reading, just to be allowed the opportunity to be a parent to their OWN child, not the class. They did not ask for disclosure of the the transitioning child.( A section will be added on this incident soon).