ELCO board splits vote for first reading of a sex-based facility-usage policy

This article was funded by LebTown donors as part of our Civic Impact Reporting Project.

At the Jan. 21 meeting, the Eastern Lebanon County school board approved the first reading of a policy requiring students to use district facilities that align with the biological sex assigned at birth.

Board members Howard Kramer, Joya Morrissey, Jack Kahl, and Megan Schaeffer voted against the motion, citing concerns about how this could impact their insurance and, mainly, about going against the district solicitor’s advice to wait for U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

The previous policy allowed students to use the facilities, such as bathrooms, showers, and changing rooms, based on their gender identity. The new policy will require students to use the room that aligns with their biological sex. It also states that students can request to use single-user facilities that are available in each school building.

Board president Rachel Moyer said the goal is to close potential loopholes in the existing policy and prioritize student safety and comfort while rooting the policy in “biological reality.”

Solicitor Jeffrey Litts recommended at the policy committee meeting that the board wait until the Supreme Court case’s decision is made public, which he said would be in June at the latest.

Before the board’s discussion and vote, four district residents spoke during public comment. Two were in favor of the policy, and two cautioned against it.

Bryan Fischer, an insurance agent and ELCO parent, said he has procedural and fiscal concerns about the board’s approval of the policy. He said he is worried about the district facing a lawsuit in the upcoming months, especially with the majority of members not following the solicitor’s advice to hold off.

Based on his professional experience, Fischer said he thinks the cost of liability coverage for district officials could increase. “That said, I don’t know whether there were any requirements to follow solicitor recommendations — probably not — but I can say with confidence that defense counsel and underwriters will be less than pleased to learn that legal advice is being disregarded. That decision would likely be remembered at the next policy renewal and could result in a significant premium increase or additional exclusions to prevent future claims.”

Jessica Hoffer also spoke in disagreement with the policy, citing statistics about LGBTQ students.

“If you aren’t going to listen to the advice of your solicitor, there’s probably nothing I can say to change your mind, but there are some things I do want you to know about the LGBTQ students attending schools,” Hoffer said.

She said that, according to a national school climate survey, 82% of LGBTQ youth feel unsafe at school, 76% have been verbally harassed, 31% have been physically harassed, and 12.5% have been physically assaulted. The report states that 61% of LGBTQ students who were harassed or assaulted in school didn’t report the incident to school staff, with the most common reason why being that they didn’t think staff would do anything about it.

Peter Zanias and Paul Kashella both spoke in support of the policy.

“To have a transgender student who thinks that he is a girl to go into a girls’ bathroom raises a lot of concerns for me,” Kashelle said. “Basically, what happens if this boy that says they’re a girl starts to get tendencies of being a boy again and finds the girl that come into the bathroom very attractive? What would happen then?”

He said this could lead to the person exposing themself or inappropriately touching the girl. He asked the crowd how they would feel if this were their child going into the bathroom.

Zanias said he thought the district should protect all students, and not just those “seeking you to impose their identities on those who believe reality, science, and biology are the correct identifiers.”

When it was time for the board to deliberate, Kramer, Morrissey, Kahl, and Schaeffer each brought up their concerns with the vote. They recommended that they follow their solicitor’s advice and wait until the Supreme Court decisions are shared before moving forward. Some also echoed Fischer’s statements about potential lawsuits.

Board member Jean Pierre Santos said this was just the first reading and not the final approval, so the board could vote in favor of the policy at the January meeting and then hold it in committee until they hear from the Supreme Court.

A motion to table the policy vote failed 4-5.

Moyer said after the meeting that she doesn’t prefer Santos’s timeline. She said she’s looking to have the final approval at the February meeting. She said she considers it a safety issue, so the board should take action before the Supreme Court decisions.

Schaeffer said that adopting this modified policy before the decisions would be a waste of time and resources because there’s a possibility they’d have to go through the process again over the summer.

“This is not based on the content of what is in here — it’s based on the timing only. I would just like to wait until that time is appropriate. We know that it’s coming in June at the latest,” she said. “I’m appealing to everyone to kind of just wait it out, listen to our solicitor, and when that time comes to change it, because I do believe we will end up changing it, then we change it then.”

Moyer said policy is a standing committee, and they can change the facilities policy later if they need to.

After the meeting, she said they haven’t had an instance of students using bathrooms that don’t align with their biological sex, but they are looking to decrease the existing policy’s flexibility and address safety concerns before there are issues.

In other business, the board:

• Approved an emergency expenditure from Thermal InMotion for the rental of a temporary boiler in the middle school after two existing boilers had mechanical failures. It has a one-time cost of $4,000 for freight, pickup, and delivery and a monthly rental cost of $16,000. The agenda doesn’t outline a duration, but says it will be determined by the administration based on repair and replacement timelines.
• Approved all personnel and curriculum action items outlined in the agenda. The curriculum approval includes the 2026-27 ELCO High School educational planning guide, which provides information for parents and students regarding graduation requirements, career pathways, and course offerings.
• Authorized the administration to work with Raymond James as underwriter, PFM Financial Advisors LLC as financial adviser, Saxton & Stump LLC as bond counsel, and the district solicitor to proceed with the issuance of general obligation bonds.

The ELCO school board will have its next regular meeting on Feb. 17 at 6 p.m. at 180 Elco Drive, Myerstown.

Editor’s note: An earlier version of this article misstated Bryan Fischer’s job. He is an insurance agent, not an insurance adjuster. We sincerely regret the error.