The Elk River School Board spent a significant portion of its meeting debating draft language for the district’s 2026 legislative platform that asks lawmakers to "consider changes to the Minnesota Human Rights Act to allow Minnesota High School League to comply with Title IX" following a Sept. 30, 2025 federal ruling.

Director Franzen presented the draft platform and described it as a communication tool to legislators about district needs, including funding, special education revenue and operational concerns. The platform’s section titled “Protecting Girls' Sports and upholding Title IX” prompted the longest board discussion.

Director Hamlin spoke strongly against including that item on the platform, calling bans on transgender athletes “discrimination thinly veiled as something else.” She argued that safety concerns are already addressed through rules, training and supervision, and said excluding trans students “perpetuates stigma and undermines the principle of inclusion.” Hamlin said that, as a private citizen, she would lobby if she wished but did not support making exclusionary language a district legislative priority.

Other board members disagreed about the timing and legal framing. Director Nordos said the issue centered in part on potential federal findings that could affect district funding, and noted the board sought legal counsel about proposed language; she asked that the board be respectful in how such proposals are advanced. Director Weiss and others urged caution and said the district should let ongoing legal processes play out rather than take early statutory positions that could create liability or funding risk.

Board members also discussed related concerns about the Minnesota State High School League and whether in‑person representation at league meetings had been correctly framed in local media. The board did not adopt a final platform at the meeting; the draft remained open for revision and board members were invited to submit changes before a later vote.

The debate highlighted a split on whether the school district should include controversial social policy language on a document intended chiefly to secure funding and statutory fixes for operational issues.

No final vote on changing state law was taken; the platform remained in draft form for further revision.