conference with Ms. Krarner. The book was not discussed.
60. Later that same day, the Wirthlins emailed Ms. Kramer specifically to arrange a meeting
to discuss the book. A meeting for the next day was arranged.
61. On March 3 1, 2006, Ms. Kramer called in the morning and asked to postpone the meeting
and to choose a different time to meet. Additional emails were exchanged and a new
meeting was set for April 6,2006. She also asked what the topic of the meeting would
be. The Wirthlins indicated they had additional concerns and wanted to discuss the book
that was read.
62. On or about April 5, 2006, the Wirthlins received a telephone call from the defendant
Principal Jay. Ms. Jay asked them who they were bringing, besides themselves, to the
scheduled meeting, and informed the Wirthlins that she intended to be present. She also
inquired as to the intended outcome.
63. On April 6,2006, the meeting took place. Principal Jay presented the plaintiffs with the
letter Dr. Ash had previously written. (See paragraph 43, supra.) She took the position
that allowing second-graders to view the book King and King was consistent with Dr.
Ash's statement. Ms. Jay was cordial but unwilling to bend at all on the issue of notice.
Essentially, she reiterated Dr. Ash's statement and indicated that it was the only policy
that would be considered.
64. On or about April 1 1, 2006, the Wirthlins received an email from the defendant Principal
Jay stating that their concerns were at a "district-wide level" and that she would not be
able to answer them.
65. At the meeting on April 6, 2006, the Wirthlins repeatedly requested that they be informed
before the adult defendants intentionally presented themes of homosexuality to their