At the center of the debate was the district’s approach to handling LGBTQ-themed literature. Several public speakers voiced their concerns over the decision to restrict access to certain books, arguing that it sends a damaging message about the acceptance of diverse identities. Karen Muty, a Stillwater graduate and parent, criticized the district for contravening existing policies and failing to involve licensed media specialists in the decision-making process.

Another speaker, Heidi Gildy, highlighted the role of libraries as places of learning and representation. Gildy argued that removing LGBTQ-related books could harm children’s understanding of diversity, stressing that all students should see themselves reflected in literature. The sentiment was echoed by Dr. Julia Cono Zeal, who argued that “Call Me Max” is appropriate for young children and promotes understanding and acceptance of diverse identities.

Conversely, some community members supported the district’s actions, citing concerns about the appropriateness of the content for young children. Dr. Nina Cooper noted that, according to Minnesota law, books with sexual content require parental permission for checkout. She questioned whether discussions of sexual preference should be broached with young children and emphasized that parents should have the primary role in deciding what their children read.

The debate extended to accusations of censorship and indoctrination, with some speakers alleging that the district’s policies promoted LGBTQIA themes without parental consent. A community member argued that the district’s actions amounted to “sexual grooming” and called for a system where parents could opt out of exposing their children to these materials.

The board’s handling of the situation was also scrutinized, with questions raised about the district’s policies for reviewing and challenging library books. Anna Zenko, a speaker at the meeting, sought clarification on the procedural aspects and expressed concern that media specialists were not involved in the evaluation process. She urged the board to ensure transparency and adherence to established policies.

In response, the board chair acknowledged the controversy and the need for updated policies governing library materials. They highlighted ongoing efforts to revise outdated policies to align with current best practices and legislative changes. The chair announced plans to introduce a new policy, 66.5, to address these issues and emphasized the importance of community involvement in the policy update process.

Beyond the discussions on library books, the meeting also addressed the district’s financial challenges. The board reported a decrease in budget reserves, which had dropped to 1.1% from 9.7% in 2020. This reduction limits operational flexibility, particularly in the face of unexpected funding disruptions. The board presented a preliminary budget forecast indicating a slight increase in revenue and a decrease in expenditures due to favorable cost estimates for literacy adoption.

The meeting also explored priority-based budgeting, with a focus on aligning instructional and operational priorities with the district’s strategic plan. Three focus areas were identified for the next fiscal year: literacy, school culture, equity and inclusion, and social-emotional learning and mental health. The board discussed expanding successful programs, adjusting or eliminating others, and enhancing concurrent enrollment courses to retain high school students.

In addition, the board introduced a new initiative to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) into the educational framework. A specific AI tool called “Brisk” was highlighted, which is designed to assist educators by simplifying tasks and enhancing operational efficiency. The administration expressed excitement about this initiative, emphasizing the need for responsible AI usage and the development of guidelines for its application.