(The Center Square) – A bill that would add several protected classes to nondiscrimination provisions that apply to public schools in Washington state, received a public hearing Monday in the House Education Committee.

Senate Bill 5123, which passed the full Senate March 6, would add ethnicity, homelessness, immigration or citizenship status, and neurodivergence to protected status. It also separates sexual orientation, gender expression and gender identity, into three separate protected classes when it comes to public schools.

The first person to testify in the hearing said his son is transgender, and he urged committee members to support the bill.

“Hopefully the day after it is passed, my kid would be a little safer than the day before it’s passed,” said Dan Novogrodsky as he choked back tears.  

Dawn Land testified against the bill.

“We can’t give special rights and extra rights to a special class when it takes rights away from others, like women,” said Land.

“5123’s definition of sexual orientation is also contrary to federal regulation as of Jan. 20, 2025,” she said, referring to President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring that only two sexes, male and female, would be recognized. “To pass this jeopardizes federal funding of government schools of Washington state.”

Amy Cannava with the WA State Association of School Psychologists argued the bill is needed so that each proposed protected class is individually recognized.

“Enumeration matters. We know that policies that don’t specifically identify enumerated protections for specific groups, create loopholes by in which student rights against bullying and intimidation are not truly protected,” said Cannava.

Grace Nyblade also testified in support of the bill.

“There have always been more than two genders, going back hundreds of years. I understand that is not a popular opinion right now; however, it does keep children alive. If these children have adults that support them, it increases their safety,” said Nyblade.

Several Republican members of the committee suggested the bill is unnecessary as there are already student protections from discrimination and harassment in current state and federal law.

“Enumerated rights are codified in the constitution of the United States,” said Rep. Matt Marshall of Eatonville. “I would make the assumption that we all agree persons should not be discriminated against or subject to bullying, harassment or intimidation or be afraid.”

Sharon Damoff said she too is concerned about the loss of school funding because of contradictions with federal law.

“If you pass this law, Washington will be in conflict with federal policy and it will cost the state billions in funding. We also don’t want to spend millions on a court battle trying to fight the federal guidelines, which are based on common sense. Boys should participate in boys’ sports, not girls’,” said Damoff. “Making gender identity a protected class would actually be discriminatory against girls because it would deprive them of their right to privacy, safety and fair sports.”

Tonya Hickman, a member of the Lynden School Board, also spoke against the bill.

“Kids are doing a lot of self-diagnosing, and I think this puts this gender affirming ideology and school boards in a very precarious situation when teachers are not licensed professionals with the ability to diagnose,” said Hickman. “These controversial bills are a large part as to why parents are withdrawing their children from public education.”

As previously reported by The Center Square, enrollment in state Washington public schools as of June, 2024 was down 4% since 2019, with many of those students now enrolled in private schools, charter schools or home school programs.

When the bill passed the Senate earlier in March, it fell along party lines on a vote of 30-19, with no Republicans in support and every Democrat in favor of passage.

(The Center Square) — A recent audit reported that the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness did not comply with reporting requirements for the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act.

This is not the first instance either. The Louisiana Legislative Auditor noted that this is the second consecutive year that the homeland security office has not complied with specific reporting requirements in federal law — this year for two programs. 

According to the auditor’s office, the Hazard Mitigation Grant and Flood Mitigation Assistance programs must report specific information for obligating actions equal to or over $30,000 in federal funds for a subaward to a non-federal entity to the FFATA Subaward Reporting System no later than the end of the month following when the obligation was made. 

With these guidelines in place, four of 11 Hazard Mitigation Grant subawards tested totaling $3,898,561 were submitted 54 to 117 days after the due date. There were also 12 of 15 Flood Mitigation Assistance subawards tested totaling $21,245,124 submitted 115 to 176 days after the due date.

The Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grant is a program under FEMA that provides resources and funding for communities seeking disaster preventative measures. The Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant is another FEMA program that provides funding to reduce the risk of flood damage to buildings insured by the National Flood Insurance Program.

This is the second year the homeland security office has not complied with reporting guidelines for the Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant. The auditor’s office addressed the consecutive years of noncompliance in their report after finding that management had not addressed the previous year.

“Our Corrective Action Plan from FY23 is being implemented; however, there are still issues beyond our control in the FSRS system, as far as permissions for more than one staff, as well as the report from homeland security office Grants working as it should,” Sandra Gaspard, assistant director of the Hazard Mitigation Assistance Division, noted in the response to the audit.

The auditor’s office offered some recommendations in the report, including the homeland security office bolstering its internal controls. This would allow award information to be entered on time adhering to federal requirements. 

However, in the office’s response, Gaspard noted that the Federal Funding and Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System is changing soon.

“FSRS is being retired this Spring, and the process for the new system entry will require an entirely new implementation plan,” said Gaspard.

The homeland security office anticipates its corrective action plan to be completed in 90 days. 

Emilee Ruth Calametti serves as staff reporter for The Center Square covering the Northwestern Louisiana region. She holds her M.A. in English from Georgia State University and soon, an additional M.A. in Journalism from New York University. Emilee has bylines in DIG Magazine, Houstonia Magazine, Bookstr, inRegister, The Click News, and the Virginia Woolf Miscellany. She is a Louisiana native with over seven years of journalism experience.

(The Center Square) – Promotion, demotion, transfer, suspension, separation and dismissal reasons in North Carolina government would become public record if a proposal by two Republicans becomes law.

The Government Transparency Act of 2025, also known as Senate Bill 299, is “an act to strengthen confidence in government by increasing accessibility to certain public personnel performance and dismissal records.” Sens. Norman Sanderson of Pamlico County and Buck Newton of Wilson introduced the legislation Monday.

The language of the bill says in part, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize disclosure of any confidential information protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 1936, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 104 Stat. 327, or applicable law.”

HIPPA is a national standard for protecting medical records or other personal health information. The ADA involves civil rights, and the protection against discrimination in public life.

The law would be inclusive of each department, agency, institution, commission and bureau of the state for each employee. Employer, the bill says, “means any state department, university, division, bureau, commission, council or other agency subject to this article.” It further adds university means its respective board, trustees, chancellor, constituent institutions or its presidents.

The law would apply to local boards of education.