H.B. 144 School Community Council Amendments: transcript

Okay, thank you Mr. Chair. And I would also like to invite Paula Plant, who is the director of the school children's Trust section at the State Board of Education. Um, I am speaking to the second sub, so there is a second sub online for this bill. I really appreciate all of the feedback that I got from each of you on this bill. Um, the biggest change in this, in the second sub is that, uh, we reinstated, Uh, lines 1 24 through 1 26, um, regarding the educator, parent members and non-educator parent members. So there still needs to be one more non-educator parent member than parent member, um, on the school community council. And, um, and I just, you know, wanna clarify that the intent was never to diminish parent voices. We were only trying to help some small schools that have struggled, struggled to see the council. Um, but I recognize and appreciated all your feedback that we wanna make sure that our parent voices are strong on our school community councils so that, um, language has been restored. So basically what the bill does then is, um, changes the language on internet filtering and it, it aligns 75 through, uh, 87, um, is just changed because it talks about ensuring that there's adequate on and off campus filtering installed and consistently configured. And, um, our, most of our SEC members don't have that level of technical expertise. And configuring internet filtering is something that happens on a regular daily basis that our professional IT people, um, are on top of. So what then, what it adds in 90 92 is that, um, they will receive a report and the report will talk about what the, the, um, dis or what the school is doing to filter. And then up in line 63, the SCC will still advise and make recommendations on that. And, um, that those are the, that those are the changes in the bill.

Thank you. So, um, can you say that part about the filtering again? 'cause all I see is that it's making it so that they don't have to have adequate on and off campus filtering. And so, but you say that there's IT people who do it. So are you talking about just the community council used to oversee this and now the IT person will just give them a report?

Yeah, so the it, what we're taking about is the school community council partnering with the principal to ensure that it's consistently configured. Um, but if you'll go back up to line 63, the school community council still advises and makes recommendations and d for safe technology utilization. And then down in 92 we added this, um, report, which is currently in board rule already. But we've gotta encode, um, that the school community council will still receive a report that talks about internet filtering and what's being done and they can still advise and make recommendations. Okay,

Great. And then also, um, so you said it has to have one more non-district school parent. Where is that?

So lines 1 24 through 1 26. And again, this is on the second substitute,

Oh, maybe I'm looking the wrong one. Um, says that the number of parent members of a school community council who are not educators employed by the school district shall exceed the number of parent members who are educators employed by the school district. So you have to make sure you have more non-educator than educator parent members.

So if you're, what, That's what I see like crossed out that's not,

Uh, 1 24 through 1 26 of the second sub have not been crossed out.

Okay. So that is still the policy. Okay. Looking at the right. Alright, thank you.

Yes. Um, a question about lines 1 27 to 1 33, which basically is saying, um, well, it just says if after an election the number of parent members who are not educators employed by the school district does not exceed the number of parent members who are educators employed by the school district. The parent members of the school community council shall appoint one or more parent members to the school community council so that the number of parent mem members who are not educators employed by the school district exceeds the number of parent members who are educators employed by the school district. So it sounds like we're saying in lines 1 24 to 1 26 that we do need to keep with that same, um, number. And we had talked about that before and I was like very happy that we weren't going to be changing that, but then to cross out this part on 1 27 to 1 33 could end up negating lines 1 24 to 1 26. And so, um, I'm concerned there because I think they should be able to keep that balance and appoint other people if an election turns out to not work in the favor.

Okay. So 1 24 through one rule 26 is still the policy. Those lines that are crossed out was a process and, um, saying that after an election, here's what you need to do. And, um, the reason why we changed that is because I don't think they necessarily need to wait until after an election if they know that there's no non-educator parents applying, you could recruit before the election. So we just want the flexibility of let's meet the policy, which is that you have to have more non-educators than educators, but not be so specific about exactly when and how you have to do that. It may might make more sense to recruit people before the election and not wait till after the election so that the people can actually be elected rather than appointed.

Yeah. I I just feel like it makes it vague enough that it could, it could make them, um, go well, but you know, we don't, so now we're not gonna get parents, so now we're gonna get other more educators instead. I just feel like it would, it would make it better if there was a, that little, okay, if it's a awkward situation, here's how you handle it. I feel like that's more clear for the councils going forward instead of taking it out. I think when you take it out, it, it kind of creates a loophole, um, for that standard not to be followed. So, and I do have an amendment related to that for later.

Okay. And just to respond to that, our councils have thought that language is unclear and if we just make it very clear what the policy is in code, which is 1 24 through 1 26, um, they can meet that however they need to meet that.

So have they not been, um, able to, with the existing language that's here lines 1 24 to to 1 33, which has already been in code, um, have they not been able to have proper elections?

Have they had problems because of that language? No, There's, this language says you have to wait until after the election to even deal with the problem. And that's what I'm trying to change. I you should be able to deal with it, um, before an election when you're recruiting people to it. I don't think it makes sense to require everybody to wait till, till after the election to deal with it.

I see. So do we need to add something that says that then that to do it before an election?

I think, uh, just by taking out the process and sticking with the policy, they have to meet the policy. So they have to have more non-educators than educators. Bottom line.

I still have concerns about that. Thank you.

Thank you chair. Sorry. Your microphone is now on. Okay. Thank you Chair. Amanda Bollinger, vice Chair, Utah State Board of Education. Just wanted to let this body know that the State Board of Education has taken a position on this bill in support of it. And we do appreciate Representative Miller's work on this and helping us making sure that our school community councils clearly understand the policy and can meet the requirements. So thank you.

Thank you. I'm Mark Clement. I am, uh, representing the Utah School Board's Association and superintendents that, uh, meet with the joint legislative committee. And we are also in support of this bill. Um, I have also served on community councils for a long time, and the requirements, uh, surrounding, um, filters was very difficult for school boards to deal with. I feel like this clarity of them receiving a report that discusses how it's being handled makes it much more approachable by, uh, community council members. And, uh, I I think that overall the bill will improve this, uh, educational process.

You. Liz Mumford, I speak for the Land Protection and Advocacy Office in support of the bill, we just wanted to thank the sponsor. We've watched, um, robust work by the Trust Lands Advisory Committee over the last year who has really studied ways to make sure that community councils engage parents and that there's more clarity in the provisions that are in code. And so we are in support of this bill. Thank you.

I, um, I am the trust lines chair for Utah PTA. And I just wanted to say we actually have not taken a position of sub two, but we did take a position on the original bill and I wanted to say that PTA had supported the original hospital 1 44 and I'm sure that it will continue to support. Um, but I have to bring it up in the meeting this week. But I wanted to say we had taken a position of support and continues its longstanding standing advocacy for the responsible use of Utah School and institutional trust plans for decades. Utah PTA has championed strong school community councils as the state's unique locally driven model for ensuring that trust lands funds directly support student learning. And so I just wanted to have that noted.

Thank you. I move that we adopt, uh, substitute.

Appreciate the sponsor working with the committee. Thank you.

Um, thank you and again, appreciate your feedback and, um, just, you know, to clarify that the policy or it's gonna be in code, that there needs to be more non-educator parents than educator parents.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I move that we adopt Amendment one to the second set of HB 1 44.

Yes. I was just thinking, you know, there's so many different people who are employed by the school district and I could see it being an oversight in an election and maybe not filtered out at the beginning. And I feel like that keeping this part in lines 1 27 to 1 33, which my amendment just puts it back in the way it's already there as it exists currently in code. I think this just gives a really good, it's not saying you have to do it after an election. I think they can do it prior to the election and make sure that everything's okay. But if there's some oversight that happens, we don't want there to be a loophole where that, um, balance is not accepted because they don't have a procedure for after an election. And so I just think that that's the smarter way, you know, obviously the intent is do it all before the election, but if there's a problem after they need something for that. And so I think we keep that, um, in for those cases.

Um, I would oppose that, I think that language has been really confusing for a lot of our school community council members. Um, I think the policy's clear. They know that they need to meet the more non-educators than educators and, um, I, I think our schools and our, our school community councils can figure out that process and, and preferably before an election than after.

Thank you. I also appreciate all of the work that the sponsor has done and how, how much she's talked to everybody and made sure this came to a good place. I just think this is an extra protection that helps them, uh, if they end up in a circumstance where maybe there was an oversight and they didn't get that balance method that they needed to. And so I, I don't see it as being harmful in any way. Only helpful. So I'm hoping that people will vote for that and I appreciate the bill despite that.

Yes, I recommend that we favorably recommend, uh, second substitute house bill 1 44.

I'll waive. Alright.

Uh, I'll waive All to the maker. I'll Waive. All right.

Thank you. Yes. I am joined by Paula Plant, who is the director of the School Children's Trust section at the Utah State Board of Education. Um, it's pleasure, pleasure to be in senate ed today. So this bill, HB 1 44, substitute two, is a bill that makes the law cleaner and remove some outdated language. It is recommendations that came from the Trust Lands Advisory Committee that advises, um, Utah State Board of Education, and they have, uh, requested these changes in code. So two basic things that it does. First of all, there's some language and code about safe technology utilization, and it removes the language that has school community councils involved in installing and configuring internet filtering. Our volunteer councils do not, for the most part, have the technical expertise to be effectively involved in the day-to-day process of internet filtering. Um, but what, what it does add is a report to the school community council on the steps that the administration takes to provide a safe school environment, including internet filtering. That report is currently in board rule and is happening. Um, and so that just codifies it, um, to make sure that the school community council is still involved in those discussions about safe technology utilization and about advising and making recommendations. The second thing, um, has to do with council seating. Yep. Right now, there was a requirement to have more non-educator parents than educator parent members, and it maintains that requirement, but it just takes out a paragraph that, um, has been somewhat confusing to people. It's just prescriptive on how to meet the requirements. So the requirement stays in place, just removes the, the paragraph, um, stating how to get there. So those are the two things the bill does, and I'm open to any questions.

Still on. I support this mic. Okay. You know, I, I do have a question. I know, uh, one of the bills was presented this, this term, um, from Senator Fillmore actually, uh, encouraged us to, to go to, well, it actually in the bill it says we should move to a white listing technology instead of blacklisting band sites. We should just whitelist the ones they should go to. And I think the latest in internet technology really is to lock everything down and then open only the sites that they're allowed to go to. And that, that makes it a lot easier to, to figure out which ones they should be at. I, I don't see anything in your bill that would prevent that, but, and maybe that's why we need to turn it over to experts.

Yeah, and you're right. There's nothing in the bill that would prevent that. In fact, I think most LEAs have, you know, full-time staff that's just trying to get a handle on this, um, filtering because, uh, it's really become more advanced than when that language was first put in the bill many, many years back.

So, Yeah, it would, it would be nice if we just locked everything down and only let them have access to what they should have access To. I think that's a fairly common pride is like, at least I know in my school district, you know, teachers can't get access to things they think they need and they have to request and get access to it. So it feels like, it feels like the default is to lock a lot down. Right. Yeah.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Amanda Bollinger, vice Chair of State Board of Education. This is a bill that we actually voted to support and in fact, it is a bill that we have requested a legislative change on. So we appreciate the sponsor of the bill and would ask for your support as well.

Thank you. Uh, I recommend that we pass out with a favorable recommendation, second substitute house bill 1 44 to the full body of the Senate.

Well, thank you. I'd appreciate your support. Senator Balderree, I'll waive.

Well, thank you. I have Paula Plant here with me, who's the director of the school Children's Trust section at the Utah State Board of Education. And also, um, the person that, that we have, that we owe a lot of thanks to for bringing us the whole, uh, school Community Council, um, program. Um, so this is HB 1 44 School Community Council Amendments. These are suggestions that have been brought to us by the Trust Lands Advisory Committee, which is an advisory board of the Utah State Board of Education. And, and the main goals are just to clean up some pieces of code that are, have been confusing to council members. So I'll just just walk you through, there's two main changes. One, there's language in there on line 76 about the school community council council partnering with the school's, principals and other administrators to ensure adequate on and off campus filtering when that language was first put in. Filtering was not nearly the complex ever changing challenge that it is today. And there's been questions about what does the word partnering mean? And so, um, it removes those but then adds in that the admin or that the school community council will still receive a report from administration on what's being done, um, to provide a safe school environment. And that includes filtering. And the school community council will still have a discussion on that and have a discussion on safe technology utilization and digital citizenship. Um, so that just clarifies what their role is when it comes to internet filtering. And then the other, um, the other piece, um, is to help out some of our smaller districts where the, um, school districts, the main employer in town and the change. So currently there has to be two more parents than educators on a school community council. If you are a parent member of a school community council, but an educator at a different school, not the school whose school community council you're on, the current code, um, says there still needs to be more, um, non-educators than educators on the school community council. And so the suggestion was made that, um, we make an exception to that in, um, counties of the fourth, fifth, and sixth class, um, as that would help, um, some of our more rural areas, uh, staff of school community council. So those are the two main changes. Did I miss anything? Okay. Well that concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, well, I can appreciate people sometimes, you know, wanting to clean up some language and stuff like that. Um, there's some things I have concerns about in this bill. Um, I am, I'm seeing parents being removed from the conversation. I know that there's been a justification for rural districts that that might be, you know, an issue there, that there's not enough parents in their community to actually be in a community council. But what this would do across the state, I think would be a really, I mean, the whole point of a school community council is to be a check on the school system. So if you have all teachers in your school community council, there's a bias that's not a good program for a school community council. And, um, and then to also remove the filters or, uh, to remove some of the oversight on the filters, um, is, is not good. I think that we should still, um, keep our finger on that and, and look at harmful content and ask questions about harmful content and that stuff like that. So I guess I, I suppose I'm opposed to the whole bill, but I'm wondering, um, what schools in the state of Utah have all parents working at the school so that there would not be enough?

Ms. Plant. Thank you. Paula Plant. I'm the director of the School Children's Trust you, I'm sorry, you have to pull that mic down a little bit. Thank you. I'm the director of the School Children's Trust State Board of Education. There aren't any schools in the state where the, uh, where parents who are working at the school serve on the school Community Council. What this is referencing is parents who teach in the district, but have children's, um, at the school. That's what we're referencing. There aren't any councils where parents who are working at the school are on the school community council.

Okay. Maybe. So what I was understanding from the presentation, Mr. Chair, if I may go ahead. Um, what I, what I was understanding from the presentation was that the rationale for not having to have that, that balance between the parents' voices and the teacher's voices on the school Community council was because in rural districts, there's not enough parents that aren't teachers. And so they wouldn't be able to find that balance. And I'm wondering, where is that school? What, what ones are there that we're trying to make that accommodation for?

May I answer? Of course, yes. Okay. So, um, there are, there are schools in smaller school districts where the parents are employed at schools that are not that, that school, that school, they're employed someplace else in the district. And so in those cases, sometimes you can't seat a council with parents who are just parents who don't work someplace in the school district. And so that's, that's what we're trying to do is say in those cases, if you can't seat a council of parents that are not also employed at the district, you can use some parents who are, but they're not working at the school. They're not teaching at the school, they're teaching at a different school.

Thank you. This sounds to me like a situation where there's some parents who want on the board, but because of, or, or the council, but because they work at a certain place that would rule them out from it. But I don't know if other parents have actually been contacted and asked to be on this. And so to me it just seems, um, a just a little bit of a, a myopic lens on this community council and we're missing the big picture about what it's supposed to be. So I have concerns. Thank

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I too appreciate the intent, um, behind this. And, um, I would just say as a mom who has been on a rural Community council, um, with, uh, the school district being a major employer in the county, um, I am really worried the whole idea of the makeup of a council is to have a different voice. To have parents who have needs and ideas outside of the school system to be able to come to the table. And if we are letting not only the amount of administration in a school, um, but then also getting parents outside the school who are school employees, I don't feel like we will be getting a different viewpoint. And so for me, um, I I, I don't like that, um, requirement and, you know, maybe, maybe they can trade out, um, you know, a position of an administration, you know, someone like that. Or maybe look at the changing the makeup of how many administrators are on the school community council, rather than saying, Hey, you know, whether there's staff at one school or staff at another school, that's gonna be the staff opinion. And I just don't think that was the reason to have a school community council. And, um, excuse

Sorry. Not clarifying then. Okay.

May I respond to the comment? Go ahead, please. Um, just, just to clarify, it's still an election too, so if people don't want those people, they don't have to elect them on the board. Um, and then, um, sorry. You know, also just for me, it, it allows people whose kids go to that school serve on that school of Community council, and they actually still can, there just needs to be one more. So the way that it's it's currently written is if some people that were employed at a different school got on there, then after the election you had to go back and, and find one more. That's not, and that's where a couple of our councils have, have struggled is, is, you know, finding that extra person that's not

Okay. Well, my name is Charlotte Fife. Jefferson, and I'm from Salt Lake City. Um, I, I'm actually on the Salt Lake City School Board member, but I have attended a lot of SCC, um, meetings, school community council meetings in my precinct because that's what we, we wanna do. We wanna hear from our parents and our schools. And, um, it's true that there, there is a difficulty filling, um, the SCC uh, committee. So if I think as long as it's a parent, you know, a parent has, just because they work at a at another school doesn't mean they don't have a right to voice their opinion for their own child. So I think that that should be allowed and to help the CCS function. But of course, we should always try getting parents, as many parents as possible to, to participate.

Yeah. Okay. Is there anything That, uh, over here, Oh, sorry. Sorry. Is there, thank you. And thank you for your testimony. Is there anything that prohibits, at this point, if there's a person who works at a school within the district, but not the same school they're trying to be on the community council for, for their spouse or anyone else in living in their household, maybe a mother, a father, a spouse, to actually be on the community council instead of them. Is there any rule that says that can't happen?

There's not. Okay, Thanks. No, I don't. And the only thing that's prohibitive of that in lower income areas is parents have a hard time coming sometimes because they, they work or they're working three jobs. And so it's a struggle in some of our, our Title one schools, I would say. Do you have a name of those schools? Yeah, I would say Mountain View Elementary School, Parkview Elementary School, Glendale Middle School, um, Franklin Elementary School. Those are all in the city, right? Those aren't rural. They're not rural. They're low income. They're, they're low income schools in my dis in my precinct.

That's all I can speak to. Okay. Thank

Yeah, thank you. Okay, so I'm, um, as far as I knew, I thought this was only to apply to rural schools. So if these are all low income schools, then they wouldn't qualify anyway. So I'll just, the original bill, was it applied to all schools? The substitute that is online right now applies to just those in the fourth, fifth, and sixth class counties. So I guess a chair, the question then would be, what schools do we know of that are facing this situation? And I, I don't have specific names of schools. Okay. Yeah. Well it makes me nervous to make those kind of decisions if, if we don't even know what schools we're affecting. As Someone who's looked at, well, you have the ability to influence that by the way that you adopt or don't adopt, or the sub, or if you don't, you know, in terms of how we handle the bill and the action items.

You. Thank you. Thank you for your work on this bill. Uh, I move that we hold this bill for now and, um, work out maybe some issues that we're having among the committee, um, and then revisit it. Okay. We have a motion to hold, uh, house Bill a 1 44 School Community Council amendments. Would you like to speak to that motion? Um, no. I'll waive.

I would be fine with that. Okay.

Seeing none back to the maker, I'll waive.

matter. Meeting clerk Second substitute House Bill 1 44 School Community Council amendments by representative Tracy Millard. This bill was heard in education with a vote of 10 0 5.

Thank you. This bill was, um, requested by the Lands Advisory Committee to the, um, Utah State Board of Education in order to remove some outdated language and, and clean up, um, some of the codes. So it does two things. First of all, it removes language that has school community councils responsible for ensuring that internet filters are installed and configured correctly. Um, internet filtering right now has become a very complex issue. One that most of our volunteer school board or volunteer school community council members don't have the, the expertise to engage in that on a regular basis. So it removes that language. Um, but it does require the administration of the school to give a report to the school community council of what the school is doing to ensure safe technology utilization, including internet filtering and it maintains the school community council's responsibility to advise and give recommendations to the principal. The other section of this has to do with the provision, um, on non-educator parents. The requirement is that there is more non-educator parent members than educator parent members. That requirement stays the same, but it just removes a paragraph that, um, is somewhat confusing about how to meet that requirement. So just removes how to, how to meet it, but the requirement stays the same. And that is the bill and I'd ask for your support.

Uh, thank you. Uh, just a cleanup bill and I appreciate your support for it.

Thank you. As you look at the highlighted provisions here, it's a little bit confusing because as removes provisions related to a school community council's digital citizenship requirements, parent members who are local educated employees in development of certain principles, you know, as a, it might be interesting, digital citizenship. The definition of digital citizenship came from this legislature. I, several years ago, uh, we, we were the first ones in the whole world, actually. People from around the world says what digital citizenship wanna define it? But anyway, it's moving this from one area in, in the, in the responsibilities and moving it to, to two other areas. So it's a clarification piece. And then there's a transparency piece on line, uh, 122 talking about, uh, recording some, uh, the votes and documents o on votes. And with that, I'll be glad to answer any questions.

Thank you. I'll waive summation and move that second substitute house Bill 1 44 School Community Council Amendments pass.

Senator Vickers Ery. Aye. Bloomin Aye. Brar bus. Aye. Comar. Escamia Fillmore. Aye. Grover Harper. Aye. Aye. Kins. Aye. Ipson. Aye. Johnson. Aye. Wan Aye. Okay. Aye. Mikel? Aye. Milner a Musman Owens pitcher Aye. Plum? Aye. Rebe? Aye. Sandal? Aye. Stevenson? Aye. Stratton Aye. Vickers? Aye. Weiler Aye. Wilson. Aye. Winterton Aye. President Adams Aye. Second substitute house Bill 1 44. Having received 26 Sha no VA votes, zero nay votes, three being absent, passes his body and will be signed by the President and return to the house for the signature of the speaker.

Thank you Mr. President. This, uh, bill has to do with planning for energy. Um, when we build large energy projects, they most of the time end up in the valley floors. Make sense? So we're not building these big structures on the mountain sides or at high elevation. And with that brings a little bit of conflict.