School board votes to end prayer lawsuit appeal

A new Chino Valley school board majority voted at Thursday’s school board meeting to cease all legal action in the 2016 court decision that ended sanctioned prayers and proselytizing at school board meetings. 

New board members Christina Gagnier, who works as a First Amendment lawyer, and Joe Schaffer joined trustee Irene Hernandez-Blair in a vote to end the district’s legal appeal of the Freedom From Religion Foundation vs. Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education lawsuit, that was originally filed in 2014. Ms. Hernandez-Blair made the motion.

Trustees Andrew Cruz and James Na opposed the action.

The district has lost several court appeals regarding the case since 2016 and the next step would have been an appeal to The U.S. Supreme Court.

Last month, the full Ninth Circuit Court refused to hear the case, setting in motion the possible appeal to the Supreme Court. 

Mrs. Gagnier said she had spoken with thousands of community members during her election campaign and the broad consensus was “people want to move past this.”   

Mr. Na said after the meeting that he felt the case should have continued because eight of 29 judges in the Ninth Circuit last month agreed that the case should be reheard.  

“What’s wrong with prayer?” Mr. Na said.

The lawsuit against the school district, fueled by a group of community members and filed by the non-profit Freedom From Religion Foundation, specifically named Mr. Cruz and Mr. Na for proselytizing and praying during school board meetings.

The court ruled in 2016 in favor of Freedom From Religion and ordered the district to reimburse the organization $200,000 in legal fees. 

Freedom From Religion attorney Andrew Seidel said legal fees have since increased by more than $150,000 because of the appeals.

Speaking before the board voted, Calvary Chapel Chino Hills employee Gina Gleason said the church has committed to fund the legal case and would continue to do so if the board continues to appeal.    

In other action, the school board discussed rescinding previous board resolutions on same sex marriage and use of school facilities by transgender students. Mrs. Hernandez-Blair asked that the resolutions be placed on Thursday’s agenda for discussion. 

The Chino Valley school board unanimously adopted a resolution on Sept. 4, 2008 in support of Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative to amend the state’s constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The resolution was proposed by former Chino Valley superintendent Edmond Heatley.

Voters approved the proposition, but two years later, a federal court deemed it unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 to allow marriage between same sex couples, Superintendent Norm Enfield said.   

The superintendent said the board’s resolution “sends the message to students that we may not accept their parents from same sex marriage.”  

State requirements to include all types of marriages in family life discussions held in classrooms created controversy on the school board last year.  

The second resolution that Mrs. Hernandez-Blair wants to rescind was approved on Oct. 17, 2013.  

It opposes Assembly Bill 1266, giving students the right to use facilities that are consistent with their gender identity.  

Mr. Na, Mr. Cruz and former board members Sylvia Orozco and Charles Dickie voted in favor of that resolution. Mrs. Hernandez-Blair opposed it.  

Last year, the Chino Valley school board approved new language to its anti-discrimination policy to allow transgender and gender non-conforming students to participate in athletic activities consistent with their gender identity. Mr. Na and Mr. Cruz voted against the policy. 

Dr. Enfield said the district has consulted with its attorneys on acting to rescind the resolutions.  

Ms. Hernandez-Blair said she would also consult with attorneys.  

No action was taken on the two resolutions. 

Superintendent Norm Enfield described the two resolutions as “polarizing” and cautioned the board not to get into the same position by taking a position on them.

Dr. Enfield said he agreed with Ms. Hernandez-Blair and several community members who spoke at the meeting to say the resolutions were divisive and harmful to students. 

Dr. Enfield said that these types of resolutions are uncommon because they are opinions.   

He said he did not support such resolutions that are based on divisive opinions.

Mrs. Gagnier asked Dr. Enfield if the school board had a history of rescinding resolutions.

 “No, but the board may update policy, which is most important because it drives action,” Dr. Enfield said.   

“Our policies are regularly updated to follow the law,” he said.