S.B. 312 Educator License Amendments: transcript

Thank you very much. So SP three 12 educator, uh, license amendments, uh, refines Utah's educator license or di discipline framework to accomplish three objectives, clarify when suspension or revocation results in employment or volunteer restrictions establish a risk-based tiered system. Distinguishing serious misconduct from technical violations require rulemaking to ensure consistent notification. When parent complaints et educator license violation, the bill does not expand definitions of misconduct. It clarifies consequences and creates procedural guardrails. What the bill does, uh, SB three 12 distinguishes between qualifying serious misconduct defined in statute to include conduct involving actual harm to a student, a credible threat or ongoing risk to student safety, sexual misconduct, grooming, or boundary violations, abuse, exploitation, violence, or serious endangerment. If an educator's license is revoked under mandatory revocation categories, or suspended or revoked for qualifying serious Manti misconduct, then the educator is automatically prohibited from employment or volunteer service in public schools during the period of suspension or revocation, the restriction attaches upon the effective date of the license action. B, uh, non-qualifying conduct for suspensions, revocations that do not involve qualifying serious misconduct, the employment or volunteer restriction applies only if the state board issues written findings that identify a specific and articulable risk to student safety and explain why a lesser restriction would be insufficient. Absent those written findings, the educator may work in a public school in a role that does not require a license. The educator might volunteer subject to applicable screening requirements, subject to applicable screening requirements. This creates proportionality. Uh, it also defines technical violations. The bill defines technical violations as administrative or documentation errors, procedure or communication failures, record keeping mistakes, unintentional misstatements unrelated to safety, licensing technicalities without evidence of harm or credible risk for technical violations. The board may not impose employment or volunteer restrictions unless there is a pattern of repeated violations demonstrating, demonstrating disregard, and the board issues, written findings. Meeting statutory standards. This prevents overreach for minor infractions. Three, parent complaint notification rulemaking. SB three 12 requires the state board to adopt rules requiring LEAs to notify the state Board PAC and the educator when the LEA receives a parent complaint alleging a violation of educator licensing standards. This ensures consistency in how parent complaints are elevated and tracked. There are due process safeguards. SB three 12 does not alter the underlying PAC process before adverse license action. The educator must have the opportunity for a PAC hearing. The board's decision must be grounded in evidence. Written findings are required when imposing non-automatic restrictions. The educator receives a copy of those findings. Existing appeal rights remain intact. Restrictions are tied to license status, not to mere allegations why this bill matters. This bill accomplishes three things. It protects students in cases of serious misconduct. Prevents disproportionate punishment for technical errors, creates a clear statewide standard instead of inconsistent district practices. It aligns educator discipline with the structure used in other licensed professions while preserving procedural fairness. And with that, I conclude my presentation. Thank you. I'd like, uh, to bring it to the committee for any questions or comments.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so I spoke briefly with you before we came here, and I'm concerned about some of the unintended consequences of this bill and how this would usurp or circumnavigate pac. Um, why would we suspend a teacher and then just put it right back or him right back into the school? It just concerns me. So what, what would PAC weigh in on this anymore? Or would it just be going around pac

Well, this doesn't go around pac, uh, U PAC has the, the say on whether this violates so, so, I I'm not quite understanding what your concern on the is exactly. So,

Well, um, my madam Yeah.

lots of different, um, issues that we can have in schools that this really doesn't understand. It's kind of like an unintended consequence of something that I believe is a good, what you're trying to do, I believe has some merit, but there's also a lot of other reasons why, um, we would want to stay with the process we have. So, um, if a teacher was suspended through pac right? Or they would just be suspended by the LEA, who's suspending the teacher PAC or the LEA? Well, the suspension or revocation has to come from pac. Okay. Um, but if they're stealing money or they were making political statements, or they were, um, not following an IEP, you would just,

Well, this doesn't, this doesn't prevent the local district from, uh, from firing somebody, for instance.

Well, there's due process, right. But you'd be saying that we'd circumnavigate to process and put them back into the classroom as long as there wasn't a person that was a victim,

No, the hearing would have to take place.

Right. Okay. The, the difference though is that if, if a, if a teacher is, is called before you back, PAC decides to take the case.

Yep. You know, the, the question is, is should that person be allowed contact with students? Well, this basically says if they're, if, if they, if it's something that could seriously harm the students. And the answer would be no. If, uh, you know, but, but PAC would have some ability to, to look at that.

So Thank you. Um, I, I, I think there's some work that we can do on this bill. So, as it is right now, I can't support it. But, um, I, maybe you and I can discuss it more at length, because I'm a little confused in some of my people that I work with are confused why you would take away that process if it was something that was happening bad in the school. So, um, and that could be a whole bunch of things. So maybe you and I should just

Yeah, I, I, I'm perfectly willing. Uh, I've, I've said before, if you know, since this is kind of late in the session, I, I don't have any problem circling this bill. Once we get, uh, it passed this committee, and then we can, you know, we can come to a mutual understanding before that.

Thank you. I, I, I thank you. I wanna protect our teachers, but also I wanna protect the kids. And I'm not sure understanding all the different possibilities why we might suspend a teacher, so, right. Just concerned about that. Thank you.

Uh, as a committee member myself, who's temporarily chairing, I'd also like to make a comment, and, and that is to say that the safety of our children and the integrity of the teaching profession are not mutually exclusive. And there are two sides of the same coin. So this bill creates a common sense tiered framework that protects our children from genuine harm, while also ensuring that our educators are not permanently sidelined by minor non-safety related violations. This is due process and, you know, innocent until proven guilty, current law can sometimes be all or nothing, making it difficult to apply proportional discipline, or on the other hand, fast tracking restrictions in high risk cases. Um, so there's data. There's data from the Utah State Board of Education that, um, underscores the need for streamlined disciplinary oversight because according to recent reports, uh, on educator professional standards, 98% of Utah educators maintain exemplary professional standing throughout their careers. That's higher than I thought. However, this current one size fits all approach, uh, to licensed, um, denial can lead to protracted legal delays. Sometimes leaving classrooms without qualified leads for months by implementing the automatic restrictions for serious misconduct, such as felonies of a sexual nature required by this bill, will remove the ambiguity and ensure that those who pose a credible risk to children never set foot in our schools. Again, simultaneously, the requirements for written findings of specific risks for other restrictions ensures that our due process remains as robust as our safety standards.

Uh, can you hear me? Yes. Perfect. Um, I'm Bonnie Billings. I'm here representing the Utah Education Association, and I'm here to ask you to vote against Senate Bill three 12. We believe that this bill undermines the credibility and effectiveness of the PAC process by diminishing the significance of a, a suspension. Currently, a clear and appropriate system exists less serious infractions result in a letter of warning or reprimand. While more serious misconduct leads to the suspension of an educator's license, and thus removal from the school environment, this bill changes that structure by creating exemptions for certain suspension cases, and therefore may not result in removal from school, the school environment. However, a suspension is a suspension because the mys conduct is severe. If the infraction did not raise to that level, it would not result in a suspension. The existing system is fair, effective, and prioritizes student safety. Uh, we oppose this bill and ask you to vote. No

Thank you very much for giving me time to speak today. Uh, I'm a mom of a teen in, in the Utah Public School District right now. Uh, and I'm also an attorney who works with PAC quite a lot. So I understand what it takes for an educator to get suspended or have their license revoked, suspension or revocation. I've been representing educators before PAC for over 15 years. Suspension and revocation is very serious discipline for very serious misconduct. And a suspension or revocation is given after an extensive, uh, investigation by the attorneys who work for pac. And they are experts in their fields. Sometimes it involves a hearing, and it's approved by pac, which is a group of 12 teachers, administrators, and community members who are also experts in the field. So you have a PAC investigator, you maybe have a hearing, and you have, um, PAC approve a suspension. It then goes before the State Board of Education, who also can approve the suspension or choose a different sort of, um, discipline bef. And if a teacher has their license suspended, they always are required to engage in some sort of rehabilitation and apply to the board before they can teach again. Now, I'm here speaking primarily as a mother of a 15-year-old girl who goes to a public high school. If I found out knowing what I know about how, what sort of things teachers get their license revoked or suspended for, if, if this bill passes a teacher who has their license suspended can just go back to, to the, to a school to work as a mother, I would find it very concerning if I learned that an educator had their license suspended and was back coaching my daughter a week later. I find that I, I find that shocking. Um, now I wanna talk about, as a lawyer who represents, uh, educators before pac, there's already a process in place where teachers can potentially return to, to schools. If a teacher says, Hey, I wanna go volunteer at my kids in my kids' classroom, there's a process in place. It's, it's a case by case basis. And you pack and say, yes, you can go do that. In this circumstance,

Yep. I got about two seconds left. The, this is gonna create another, um, it's almost like an appeal to the PAC process. And so as I said, you, it already goes through this lengthy process. Now there's gonna be another, it's gonna be almost an appeal hearing to the state board like Pac. And the board has decided that, that, um, somebody's license should get suspended. And now I get an appeal to the State Board of Education. It doesn't make sense to me if the state board of Ed thinks the suspension is inappropriate, they wouldn't approve the suspension in the first place. And that is all. Thank you for giving me time to give my, my, uh, comments on this.

Thank you. My name is Jamie Erda with Path Forward Utah. And I'm actually surprised that I'm in the seat that I'm in taking the position that I am because I did not feel like I would be out here fighting for educator's rights. But, um, recently, I mean, path forward, Utah has been very involved in education. And I was made aware of some circumstances that I don't believe that there actually is due process for our educators. And I'm very concerned about that. And this is a proportionality of, there's different reasons educators lose their license. Some is for a harm of a child, some of it's for improper paperwork. And for those that are not a harm of a child, we're not saying they should go back and teach in the classroom, but to be able to volunteer in their children's classrooms, or even did they have another position in the school. Because once they're exiled from an education environment, the odds of them returning is very minimal. And oftentimes you have educators who spent four, six or eight years getting their degree. And then to have one infraction impact them, not just from being able to teach, but even being able to able to volunteer or give services to a school or work in another capacity. I feel like that's disproportionate, uh, punishment. We're not saying the license is not getting revoked, but the board has the right, and so it's not taken away anything from the board. 'cause they can implement that if they see if it's embezzlement, if it's something else that's of concern, like you mentioned, the board can impose that same restriction. So it's, that means

it's not taking that ability of the board, who is the ultimate decision maker? And if an educator has their license suspended or has it revoked, it is the board that makes that decision and not pac.

Thank you. Hello, I'm Jennifer Partridge. I'm the Vice President of Utah School Boards Association, and I'm here speaking on behalf of, um, the association and the Joint Legislative committee, the JLC. Uh, we are opposed to this bill currently, uh, when we learned that the State Office of Education is undergoing a 10 month audit right now to look into this, we feel that it is best to wait for the results of that audit and see how to address the findings of that audit. Um, we appreciate the intent, but, um, think the timing just should wait for that. There's also, um, some questions on clarity of language with the bill as it is currently written, and whether or not this is the role of the legislature to put it into code, or if this is something that should just be in board rule that the board works out. So thank you.

I'm Corinne Johnson, president of Utah Parents United. I wanted to thank the bill sponsor for bringing this important issue forward. We have been following, we have been following, um, many of the, um, cases that have arisen, um, lately from concerns, especially out of, um, Salt Lake City School district. And parents have a lot of questions about educator licensing. Um, we see this on both sides. We see times where we feel that, um, the it, the process is working well, and then the process is not working well. Sometimes we see the process being weaponized against good teachers, and other times when teachers that parents have reported, um, to PAC through the ability that we've been granted to report, um, hasn't panned out. And so we are so grateful for legislation that's looking into this and can help resolve some of these concerns. So, so parents in Utah can feel confident that when there are, um, issues of educator con conduct and licensing, that it is handled appropriately and efficiently and we get the best results for our education system. Thank you.

Um, my name is Pam Petterson. I'm very grateful to be able to speak today. Um, I am a retired educator and I've had many experiences with pac. And, um, as was mentioned, PAC is currently under a review of their processes. And as things are coming up, the understanding that I have is that because this is codified in law, that any changes have to be put into law as well. Um, I appreciate the 10 of this bill to clarify and strengthen protections around educator licensing discipline, especially the distinction between serious misconduct involving student harm and technical or procedural violations. Student safety must always be the priority. When there is actual harm or credible risk to children, automatic restrictions must and do make sense. But when concerns involve documentation issues, communication failures, or administrative disputes, a tiered and evidence-based approach is more appropriate. Clear written findings, proportional sanctions and transparency. Transparency in the disciplinary process protects not only educators, but the integrity of the system. When processes are clear and consistent, public trust increases when they're unclear or overly broad. Confidence decreases. I especially appreciate the bills requirement that restrictions on employment and volunteer service be tied to specific articulable risks to children. This ensures decisions are grounded in safety. That's It. If you want a quick wrap, your time is over. But Strong accountability and fair process are not opposites. They reinforce each other. I believe this bill will help move Utah toward a system that protects students while also ensuring due process and proportionality for its educators. Please support SB three 12. Thank you.

You. My name's Carol Lear. I'm a state Board of Education member. I'm here speaking for myself. Um, there have been a lot of phrases to, uh, tossed around that, um, are unfortunate, and that's part of the problem. Credible risk, improper, uh, paperwork, if that's a special ed student, that's not just improper paperwork. So I think that's one of my first problems. Also, this bill supposes that there are victimless crimes and crimes with victims in public ed. I'd suggest there are no victimless crimes. Our money is so, uh, sparse that if money is embezzled, it hurts all children, not just one child. Um, when teachers' licenses are suspended currently, there is a rehabilitation, a waiting period, a retraining period. This would not require that, that this would say for certain kinds of crimes. We don't need rehabilitation, we don't need new training. We'll just let them go back into the classroom. Not just to volunteer, but also to work that undermines a currently really effective good system. Um, finally, as board members, uh, we recognize that some changes are necessary to pac. It's been a while. It, there has was a task force about 10 years ago that was really effective. But this audit that is planned will be comprehensive, and it makes a lot more sense to wait for the audit to be completed and then make a, uh, thorough, thoughtful, uh, process involving all stakeholders, involving the teachers who spoke involving the, um, state board or the, the USBA that the School Board's Association, so that it's not, your life is up. It's not just a one, um, person's idea of what is fair and effective. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is And you're in Favor. Thank you. My name, I am in favor? Yes.

Yours. So, my name is Jenny Johnson. I am an attorney. I'm currently representing a teacher whose license has been suspended on a technicality and who is before the court of appeals. She currently is not allowed to go into the public schools to, to, uh, volunteer or anything. Um, and there, I believe there's far too much about the teacher discipline process that is automatic. Uh, LEAs are automatic, have to automatically report every parent complaint to pac. PAC automatically puts flags on licenses. There's a rule that requires the PAC to automatically approve the panel report after the executive secretary Ben Rasmussen allows it to be released. And according to my research, the board automatically adopts every PAC recommendation. Never makes findings, never issues, an order never rejects the PAC recommendation. Far too much is automatic. The system is broken completely. It needs to be entirely overhauled, in my opinion. The people who have spoken against the bill do not really understand what is happening in these hearings. They do not understand how egregious the due process violations are and how targeted and, uh, profoundly unfairly teachers are being, uh, treated by pac. Um, uh, it is shocking and it needs to be completely overhauled. This bill is one step in the right direction, but much, much more needs to be done.

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee. Brad ac, uh, president, a FT Utah. I find this very perplexing that, um, I came to listen to this and, uh, look on my tracker. And we are opposing this bill, um, listening to this. Uh, I, I agree. PAC has some serious issues. I deal with this all the time with, uh, teachers that have been reported to PAC by parents. And there is a waiting list now where we have had, uh, teachers in limbo for up to a year and a half, two years, wondering if, if, uh, what's gonna come about this. However, I've also, uh, worked, I, I do want to counter what was said that those of us that are opposed do not understand, uh, this bill or what happens. Uh, yes, we do, especially when you're a union president has sat through these hearings. We understand perfectly what happens. But my point is this, um, we're opposing it as is right now. I agree, uh, with Senator Riebe, that if this was to be circled, that this could be looked at, that it could be vetted. Um, I did not know about the audit that was coming, so I, I respect the audit and, and looking at this and taking a look. So, uh, if it could be held in this committee, that would even be great with us. Thanks.

Thank you, chair. Uh, Joe Carey, a board member on the Utah State Board of Education. I also chair the Law and Licensing Committee, uh, at the Board of Education. But today, I speak for myself. And when I hear terms like rules of evidence, notice, transparency due process, uh, as a recovering attorney, these things are good things. And when I read this bill, I see those good things I am concerned about. Uh, our committee has been charged with looking and reviewing at PAC rules for the past four months. Uh, and in my opinion, we've come up short. I have heard from too many educators who have, who have had to spend 30,000, 50,000, $80,000 to go through a PAC process. And it's not necessary in every case, when we increase transparency, when we require adherence to the rules of evidence, these, these fundamental core issues of due process make that process not only more fair, but it makes it more equitable to both sides. So I speak strongly in favor of this, uh, this bill. Thank you, chair.

Excuse me. I move that we send this bill out with a favorable recommendation. I am perfectly willing to circle it on the floor and, uh, have further discussions about possible amendments to it. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I am an educator. I was on the state school board. I was the vice president of my association, and now I'm a legislator. I can tell you that there are some things PAC needs to work on, but I disagree that we rubber stamp PAC's decisions. Uh, we have created an environment in schools where parents are exercising their right to bring up concerns with their teachers. And that's something that we should address. We should be doing something in a more timely fashion. We should be dedicating more money to pac. But I taking teachers that are being suspended, whether a parent believes something is wrong, or a teacher believes something is wrong, and putting them back in the classroom does not seem to be the right answer. I would like to see it happen in a more, um, timely fashion, and there should be more transparency. But I do not believe that this bill serves that purpose. Uh, I think that the audit which is happening would provide us with more, um, tangible and more in depth insight onto what needs to change instead of just this bill currently. Uh, I do appreciate the sponsor trying to work out some of these issues, but, uh, I think the audit would be much more comprehensive and a much better fit for the problems we are seeing with this process.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to explain, the way I'm probably gonna vote is because I know Senator Johnson is very, uh, concerned about the, uh, the teachers that are being, uh, maybe misclassified on stuff, but I also know that he's more concerned about the children of the state than he is the teachers. And he says that he would fix this bill. And I take him at that, at that value, knowing that, that he will. And so I think that, uh, our committee should get it out and, uh, give him the chance to, to meet with more people and, 'cause it's getting late in the session. And I really do think that, uh, we really need to protect our children more than anything. And so I probably, if, if it doesn't get changed, I'd probably vote against it. But I would like to see it to keep to go because this is a problem. We wanna make sure that our children are safe and, but that we also need to, there's some false accu accusations against people that really shouldn't, that needs a better hearing and stuff. And this to, uh, for a person to lose his livelihood, especially after he is put all those years into college and to get his degrees and things like that. I hate to see that happen to any individual. 'cause I, I've seen that happen before that, you know, people are accused of abuse when it come down to it. He, when once you get that tagged, it's hard to, to get that changed. And so with that, I would, uh, just like to air my frustrations with it as well. So, but anyway,

Thank you very much. Uh, SP three 12 is not an expansion of dis discipline. It's a clarification of consequences for serious misconduct involving harm, credible threat, or abuse. The restriction is automatic. That is a student safety judgment for lesser conduct. The board may justify additional restrictions through written findings based on evidence that is a due process. Judgment for technical violation statutes explicitly prevents overreach unless there is a repeated pattern and undocumented risk. This bill protects students respects professional standards and builds proportionality into the system. I respectfully ask for your favorable recommendation. Thank you.

Aye. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would move sub one to SB three 12. That motion is an order. Would you like to speak to it? I would. So what this does is it clarifies a lot of the public comment was about some ambiguity in, um, in sub three. And so what this does is clarify, um, that it also adds to the effective date. Just some clarification about what cases we're talking about to make sure that the public knows, we're only talking about cases that we're open to on or after May 6th. And it clarifies for purposes of the board what the written findings mean as far as what they need to, um, include in those in order to ensure that an LEA can make an informed decision about an individual who has, um, been through the PAC process. I think I've covered everything in the sub.

The substitute. So I'm just gonna take that as a withdrawal of your earlier amendment in the pla and, and place the motion to, Oh, I apologize. Did I say amendment? Yeah, if that's okay. Okay. We had talked about an amendment during the committee and so I think that's why we got, but, but the motion is to adopt the first substitute to Senate bill three 12.

It's a good bill, and I appreciate the work to get it fixed.

Um, I just wanted to point out that I still have a concern with the bill and I think these changes are improving, but the board's never had a chance to really discuss this, and it really hasn't included them as stakeholders in development of this. And then another point, will these findings written by the board, are they going to be public? So parents would know who's interacting with their children? But the bigger thing is, I think more time would be, um, uh, a better outcome to have the board look at this. Because after all, they do have to make these rules. And so that would be my, that's will be my reason for voting though, on this bill.

No, thank, uh, thank you to the members of the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I just wanna, I wanna recognize, um, I chair we, we've been really lucky and blessed this year with a, a great new chair who, um, has run our committee really well. Um, appreciate his leadership. I just wanted to publicly, uh, vocalize that. Thank you. I appreciate that.

I, I would echo that and say Chair and vice chair. You've both done a phenomenal job and we appreciate both of you. Thank you.

To adjourn.

Yeah. So bad. I didn't think of that. I should.

Non-qualifying conduct for suspensions or revocations that do not involve qualifying serious mis misconduct. The employment or voluntary restrictions applies only if state board issues written findings that identify a specific and articulated risk to student safety and explain why a lesser restriction would be insufficient. Absent those findings, the educator may work in a public school in a role that does not require a license. The educator may volunteer subject to applicable, uh, applicable screening requirements. This creates proportionality. Two, it defines technical violation for technical violations. The board may not impose employment or voluntary restrictions unless there is a pattern of repeated violations demonstrating disregard and the board issues, written findings. Meeting statutory standards. This prevents overreach for minor infractions. SB three 12 requires the state board to adopt rules requiring LEAs to notify the state Board PAC and the educator when the LEA receives apparent complaint alleging a violation of educator licensing standards. This ensures consistency in how parent complaints are elevated and tracked. So there are due process safeguards before adverse license action. The educator must have the opportunity for a PAC hearing. The board's decision must be grounded in evidence. Written findings are required when imposing non-automatic restrictions. The educator receives a copy of those findings. Existing appeal rights remain intact. Why this bill matters, uh, it protects students in cases of serious misconduct. Prevents disproportion of punishment for technical errors, creates clear statewide standards instead of inconsistent district practices. SB three 12 is not an expansion of discipline, is a clarification of consequences for serious misconduct involving harm, critical threat or abuse. The restriction is automatic. That is a student safety judgment for lesser conduct. The board must justify additional restrictions through written findings based on evidence that is due process judgment. And with that, I'm open to questions. Thank

Thank you Mr. President. I'm noticing that, uh, many of our schools and, um, school representatives are against this bill. Uh, one of the things that was brought up in committee over and over again was that we have a, uh, problem with how long this process takes. So I I I'm empathetic to the, the fact that a student, a teacher, might have their license suspended and may be wait, may waiting a long time to receive resolution from this issue. But how would this remediate their ability to have due process in a more timely fashion, Senator Johnson?

So, uh, one of the difficulties is that, uh, yes, it does take a long time for those, and that that's something that really needs to be improved. But, but the punishments that are on teachers, uh, sometimes I think are way, way out of proportion.

Thank you. Um, I feel like I'm living in a parallel universe right now because I, I agree with you that we have, um, punishments that are a little unfair. But I think most of our school districts wanna support the fact that a suspended teacher did provide risk to the environment of the school, the school district, and the students. And although I do support a more rapid, um, due process, I don't believe that this bill does that. Uh, there is a part of this bill where people who are suspended can no longer volunteer in schools. I would gladly work to find a resolution for a parent or a grandparent or an aunt to volunteer in a loved one's school. But this is not that bill. So this bill would bring suspended teachers back into school systems at a rapid rate that our school districts do not feel comfortable with. Um, if this bill could be amended to create a due process that was quicker, I can support this bill. If this bill helped get loved ones back into the volunteering position with their loved ones, I could support this bill. But this bill, as it's written, does neither of those things. And that was the testimony we heard. So I, I don't believe that this would create a safer environment for our students. I think that this would actually create a more nebulous situation where our school districts were now put back into a battle with a parent or a school district or an employee about whether their suspension was egregious enough for them to come back into the classrooms and the schools. I think that there's some work to do with pac. There is an audit coming up that we will actually look at what's happening in PAC and try to re remedy some of these situations. But this bill does not help with those situations right now. And I think we can be more thoughtful and this should go to interim because bringing suspended teachers back into the school isn't helpful for our school districts or our parents or our students. Thank you.

Mr. President, I, I move that SB three 12.

Okay. I move that SB three 12 Educator. Pull that mic close so we've got it. For whatever reason I I move that SB three 12 educator license amendments. Be read for a third time.

Senator Spry Aye. Lewin Brammer Aye. Bus Cullimore. Aye. Escamia Fillmore Fillmore Aye. Grover Harper Aye. Kinins Aye. Ipson Johnson Aye. Wan McKay? Aye. Mikel Aye. Milner Musselman Owens pitcher Plum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers Weiler Wilson Winterton, president Adams Aye. Owens, We found Senator Grover.

I'll go ahead and vote. Aye.

process before adverse license action. The educator must have the opportunity for a PAC hearing. The board's decision must be grounded in evidence. Written findings are required when imposing non-automatic restrictions. The educator receives a copy of those findings. Existing appeal rights remain intact. Restrictions are tied to license status, not to mere allegations. This bill matters because it protects students in cases of serious misconduct, but it prevents disproportionate punishment for technical errors. It creates clear statewide standards instead of inconsistent, uh, district practices, it aligns educator discipline with the structure used in other licensed professions while pursu preserving procedural, uh, fairness. SB three 12 is not an expansion of discipline as a clarification of consequences for serious misconduct involving harm, credible threat or abuse. The restriction is automatic. That is a student safety judgment for lesser conduct. The more the board must justify additional restrictions through written findings based on evidence that is due process judgment for technical violations, the statute explicitly prevents overreach unless there is a repeated pattern and documented risks. This bill protects students respects professional standards and builds proportionality into the system. I respectfully ask for your favorable recommendations.

Thank you Mr. President. Sponsors yield for questions. Senator Johnson, will you yield? Yes.

Thank you. We had a bust conversation about this bill yesterday and, um, I'm curious as how the appeal process would work if a school district decided that even though they didn't meet the standard of egregious um, violations, they still didn't want their teachers working in their schools. Is there an appeal process that the local school district can follow so that they can do what they think is best for their students? That, That that would go through the State Board of Education?

Thank you. You know, I, I feel like this is, um, a problematic, our school boards are don't really want this bill. Our school districts don't want this bill. I think this is, is gonna make it more chaotic instead of more clarified. I said this last yesterday. We are trying to do an audit with PAC and, uh, I think we should send this to interim and see what the audit says because I think this would bring more chaos instead of more clarity. Thank you.

I move that, uh, SB three 12 Pass. Thank you.

Go ahead. Uh, There's, uh, a substitute being worked on and it's a fiscal note.

It? It just in committee we clarified some of the language about what the responsibility of the board was.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I find myself in an odd place being in opposition to the UEA on this bill. And if that doesn't wake you up from your slumber, let me just talk about this bill a little bit. Um, so in the current situation, we have PAC and, um, well, let's talk about u. SB 12 makes targeted improvements to Utah's educator licensing and discipline process. The bill clarifies how suspensions and disciplinary actions affect the teachers license and employment in our schools. It also ensures that the Utah State Board of Education and PAC have clearer guidance. One of the reasons why I'm supporting this bill is because there is lack of clear, clear guidance regarding certain situations. There is not fair proportionality on some of the instances where a, an educator might lose their license. The goal here is pretty simple. We want to protect students, ensure due process for educators, and make sure the discipline, the disciplinary system is more, uh, consistent and transparent. One of the things this bill does, and one of the things that myself and other educators are concerned about is we care about the safety and wellbeing of our students. This ensures that the most egregious offenders, so teachers who have made boundary, uh, encroachments and, and, and have done things that have harmed children, will never be able to be in a classroom again, that is very clear and very important to me, that we do not allow those who hurt children into our schools. However, there are some cases where we have technical instances where you fail to file file paperwork properly. You fail to notice that you had a, a, a, a citation outside of school. By the way, that's a good indication that we hold our educators to a higher standard. If they have something that happens, not score related, they have to report, then, then if they don't report it in a proper time, they can find their license in jeopardy. Um, administrative policy, things like this. So what this does is this would allow the LEA or, uh, pac, uh, and USBA to say, all right, in these very small situations where there is a clerical or technical error, such as those that I described here, that a teacher will still lose their license if they lose their license. They cannot be hired in practice as an educator. However, they can still come and work as a reading specialist. They can go on, uh, work as, serve as a chaperone on a school trip, things like that, that frankly in the status quo, people who are outside the education system can actually come with those same violations and work. This does not provide a danger to our students. I wanna be clear on that. I would not run anything that provides a danger to our students. We are also not giving licenses back that have been duly suspended. But this does create a process whereby those small infractions that don't cause harm to a student will allow them to still work in non, uh, licensed areas of the school. Uh, this bill, there was some great discussion on it. I worked with many of our colleagues last night and many stakeholders, and we thought that, uh, we had some concerns. And when we got through to the discussion last night, we found that it was a good place. Uh, for now, there are some more, uh, robust discussions that probably need to have surrounding pac. I expect to see more changes coming over the next session or two, but for now, this is a simple fix that allows for proportional punishment to take place, uh, where it is needed. And with that, I would ask for your support on this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, I wanna rise in support of this bill. Uh, it's been really cool to watch the sponsor of this bill, both in the Senate side and over here in the house, do some significant work on this to bring people together. Uh, this is gonna do a lot of good first aid. It's gonna help hold, uh, those bad teachers accountable and also help with the good teachers who need, who need some extra support on making sure that we can maintain their jobs and not make them feel like their hands are tied with everything they do. So, uh, this is a really good bill and I hope that everyone would support it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in support of this. I'm sure that some people remember that a year ago there was a lot of news in, in my county about teachers who had had indiscretions and problems with students. And of course everyone was shocked and we were focusing on this and how do we fix this? And PAC plays a big role in cracking down on some of those very difficult circumstances that can occur, but don't often occur in a school. And I think that we need to make their job easier for them. I think we need to protect the student, uh, the teachers that are doing well. We need to protect the students always. I think that this bill contemplates all of those nuances that PAC has to deal with is gonna hopefully offer them more clarity and support as they are trying to protect our teachers as well as all of the students in the state. So I encourage my colleagues to support.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. We'll sponsor yield to a series of questions. Representative Welton, will you yield to a series of questions?

I will. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, representative. So, I'm, I'm just trying to clarify, and there's some discussion here on the floor. Under the provisions of this bill, if an educator is con is claimed to be, have been convicted of some sort of violation or offense on if this bill passes, will they be able to return back to the classroom? This bill is not retroactive. Uh, as far as my reading of the bill, I don't see that as a thing, that it is not a retroactive thing. It does not allow them to return to the classroom moving forward. If it is a technical violation, one that's not harmful to students, it, it would not allow them to return to the school while their license is suspended. That's a teaching credentialing. And if they don't have that, but they would be able to potentially return as a reading specialist, a secretary, uh, uh, any of those capacities.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield the one additional question?

Thank you. So I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, if this is a significant deviation from the standard norm as we relate to suspension and licensure.

I, I don't believe it is, but I can honestly say gratefully that I have never been close to touching this area. So, uh, I don't know from experience, but my understanding is like, this is not a a, there's a slight deviation, uh, in that we do have this blanket provision that exists. But to the, to what the good sponsor from Illa said, I think this contemplates some nuance in circumstances where it warrants. This is, this is a very small portion of any, uh, instances that would take place with pac. It's a very, very small, very niche category.

Representative Moss, Carol Moss. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, I have some concerns with this bill, and one of 'em has to do with the, um, the lack of, uh, involvement of, of USBE and time for them to evaluate the bill. It came out two hours after the last USBE legislative meeting and the board was charged, who's charged with implementing this? Had no chance to discuss it, no input from stakeholders that would've been included in the development. So I just think let's, let's, let's pause and let's hear from those education folks who have opinions. And this is really important. Another important point, important point. Are these findings written by the board? Are they public? So parents will know who's interacting with their children, whether they're coaching or volunteering or what, um, with their children. I mean, there should be transparency. So I would just urge you to vote no on this. And let's have a pause and take another look at it for next session when there's more input, because I think we ought to, it ought to follow the correct process. And I don't believe it has done that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, I, I, my, uh, state, uh, school board member reached out to me and, and, and showed his support for this bill. Um, so I, I, I know that some of them, at least some of them have been involved in, in developing this. I think it's a reasonable policy and, and navigates the, this area fairly well. So I'd encourage your support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, this bill did come about very quickly. That's why we circled it last night and, and we let it sit so we could have some, some serious policy discussions. We had several members of this body come and work on it, as well as other stakeholders. And so I appreciate that things were moving fast and I, and I appreciate the, the concerns of my, my good colleague and, and former teacher from Salt Lake City. Um, I do think that, that this has reached a good place. And, uh, I just just wanna reiterate, sorry, this touches on a, on a, on a hard piece for me. Um, for my colleagues who have engaged in harmful behavior that hurt students, there is no place for you in education and you need to leave and you should not be come back. This maintains that though. Those teachers who engage in harmful activity to students will not be allowed back into schools under any circumstances, but it does allow that nuance, nuance that's needed. And so I urge, urge your support of this bill.