Legislature(1999 - 2000)
05/05/1999 01:47 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 192 - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the first order of business is HOUSE
BILL NO. 192, "An Act relating to reciting the pledge of allegiance
by public school students."
Number 0097
RICHARD SCHMITZ, Legislative Secretary for Representative Jeannette
James, Alaska State Legislature, explained that HB 192 calls for
the recitation of the pledge of allegiance in public schools.
Presently, there is no standard policy in Alaska. Mr. Schmitz
informed the committee that recitation of the pledge of allegiance
is required in Anchorage, somewhat required in Fairbanks, and not
required in Juneau. In some cases, the pledge of allegiance is
recited in the elementary schools while in others it is recited
through the middle schools. Mr. Schmitz stated, "The aim of HB 192
is to standardize the pledge of allegiance policies among the
state's public school systems and to insure that the basic civic
function is held on a regular basis at all grade levels of Alaska's
public schools." Upon research, the state of Washington was found
to have a basic pledge statute attached to its flag statute.
Number 0242
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether there is an exemption for
extra-curricular activities such as sporting events.
MR. SCHMITZ pointed out that at most sports events the national
anthem is preformed. This would provide an opportunity for the
pledge of allegiance in a classroom setting. He envisioned that at
assemblies there would be a pledge, but at sporting events the
national anthem is utilized which seems to take precedent over the
pledge of allegiance.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that the bill refers to
"interscholastic events" which he did not know if that was
appropriate.
MR. SCHMITZ pointed out that the language - "if feasible" - is also
used which seems to leave room for common sense and judgement on
the part of school administrators.
CHAIRMAN KOTT surmised then that the governing body is required if
feasible.
MR. SCHMITZ said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that he supported this and almost
signed on as a sponsor, but he was unsure as to the appropriateness
of the pledge of allegiance at all interscholastic events. He
indicated that although in some instances it may be feasible, it
may not be appropriate.
MR. SCHMITZ stated that the bill's reference to interscholastic
events could be left out of the bill without affecting its intent.
Number 0464
CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired as to the who the language - "governing
body" - was referring; the school districts or the local school
boards or a combination thereof.
MR. SCHMITZ noted that he is not an attorney. He believed that the
drafter utilized the language in existing flag statute.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that he shared the chair's concern.
He believed that there is confusion regarding the practicalities of
feasibility and the passive ordinance. He asked what the "Bellamy
Salute" is.
MR. SCHMITZ noted that the "Bellamy Salute" was the original pledge
which was last changed in 1954. There was discussion regarding how
the hand position of the pledge was changed after World War II.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, Sponsor of HB 192, Alaska State Legislature,
illustrated the original salute.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether every child was required to
recite the pledge of allegiance back then.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied no.
Number 0690
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to page 1, line 7 which speaks of the
"governing body". To whom does that refer?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that there is not a definition in law,
but she believed it would be the local school board which is the
governing body of the schools.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired as to the possibility that the
language of line 8 would require the pledge of allegiance to occur
in each class.
MR. SCHMITZ clarified that the language - "regularly" - was chosen
to preclude "daily", although that was the thought. Leaving the
language open provides a bit more leeway to the governing school's
administration. He indicated that as long as the pledge is done
weekly, then each school could determine the specifics. The idea
is to do the pledge more than never.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to the language - "be held
regularly in each classroom" - which she interpreted to mean in
each classroom the pledge will be recited.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES clarified that the intent of that language was
to recite the pledge in kindergarten, first, second, third, fourth,
et cetera. She said that she did not necessarily mean each
classroom that the student was in, but rather that classroom for
each grade level. Perhaps, the pledge should be done in the
homeroom.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that many schools do not have
homerooms.
Number 0903
CHAIRMAN KOTT surmised then that Representative James would like
for the pledge of allegiance to be recited at least once a day in
a classroom. Thereafter, it could occur in a school assembly and
if feasible, at an interscholastic event. Chairman Kott asked
whether the pledge allegiance would be more apt to be conducted at
the beginning of the school day in order to avoid reciting the
pledge at the beginning of every class.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES specified that her intent was to learn the
pledge and recite it regularly. There are children that do not
know the pledge of allegiance which is the problem. It is
important to have a flag in each classroom.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG reiterated his belief that the reference to
interscholastic events should be removed. He indicated that if the
bill were amended to provide the local governing body more leeway
to establish the specifics, some of these problems could be
overcome.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that she did not have a problem with
that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG discussed allowing the local governing body
to tailor this to the specific needs and circumstances.
Number 1081
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that the state of Georgia used the
following language:
"Each student in the public schools of this state shall
be afforded the opportunity to recite the pledge of
allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
during each school day."
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI further noted that "during each school
day" would not have to be utilized. As Representative Rokeberg
suggested then the local governing bodies would be allowed to
specify when, where, and how.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stressed that she did not mean to insist that
the pledge be recited every school day, but only as a regular
program. She noted the need for the language to allow those who do
not want to recite the pledge to be able to maintain silence and
respect.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether Representative James adamantly
supported the inclusion of the language, "in each classroom, at
school assemblies, and, if feasible, at interscholastic events."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied no. She said that the language -
"such as" - could be inserted. However, she indicated that she
liked listing those instances where the pledge could be done, but
she did not want to mandate it.
CHAIRMAN KOTT suggested deleting line 8 and inserting language
indicating that the governing body would determine the location,
time, et cetera.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that she did not have a problem with
that.
CHAIRMAN KOTT clarified, in response to Representative Croft, that
it would have to be clear that the governing body would have the
authority and flexibility to determine the location, time, et
cetera.
Number 1295
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented that Chairman Kott's proposal is a
good idea. He pointed out that the state of Montana's code is more
detailed and specifies, "(5) If a student or teacher declines to
participate in the recitation...a school district may not for
evaluation purposes include any reference to the student's or
teacher's not participating."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that simple is better.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to line 7 and suggested deleting,
"require that", and inserting, "afford all students the opportunity
to participate in an appropriate flag exercise to be held on a
regular basis."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected. She did not believe that to be
enough, it should be required. She emphasized that is the portion
of the bill that should be kept.
Number 1459
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "I think, if I'm not mistaken, the
sponsor had in mind to the playing of The Star-Spangled Banner at
interscholastic events which is more common than saying the pledge.
So, I think, but that's not spoken to so I'm not sure we really
need to have the pledge recited here, unless that's what the
sponsor wants to make sure that's in the title and everything."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that she wanted it in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recommended then that the committee should
consider a flag salute including the playing of the National
Anthem. He indicated that could be in lieu of the pledge which he
believed that to be appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that the playing of the National
Anthem would not negate the need for a regularly scheduled flag
salute. The playing of the National Anthem does not teach the
students the words to the pledge of allegiance. Representative
James said that she is embarrassed that there are children growing
up that do not know the pledge of allegiance.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed with Representative James.
Therefore, he suggested that the language refer only to the pledge
of allegiance and not "an appropriate flag exercise".
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that the current language works
together or else the respectful silence language would have to be
addressed in both spots. Representative Croft said that Chairman
Kott's earlier suggestion was appropriate.
Number 1589
CHAIRMAN KOTT offered a conceptual amendment [Amendment 1] to
delete line 8 and end line 7 with a period. There being no
objection, Amendment 1 was so adopted.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether it should be placed in statute and the
governing body provided the flexibility or without any language
would the governing body be provided that flexibility.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI interpreted it to mean that specific
authority to the governing body is not necessary. She believed
that with the directive to "require that an appropriate flag
exercise be held regularly", there is an underlying assumption that
someone where determine the specifics. Therefore specifying that
the governing body has the authority to do certain things does not
move further down the road.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that originally he felt the original
language was appropriate. However, do we want to allow an
individual to charge that the pledge is not be held regularly
enough and then the judge would determine what is "appropriate" and
"regularly" or that the governing body would make that
determination.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated with 50 different school districts,
there would probably be 50 different interpretations of
"regularly". He indicated that the first to be litigated would
result in the determination for everyone. Representative Green
said that it would be all over the map.
CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed that would be the case without some direction
from the Department of Education.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired as to whether Representative James
wanted uniformity throughout the school districts.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied, "Not necessarily. I think it is up
to each school board to make that determination as long as it is
part of--there is a regular occurrence of it, that it's part of the
school education system. That's all I'm asking for."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether Representative James would want
someone to have the right to go into court and say what they
determined as "an appropriate flag exercise...regularly" or would
it be preferred to have the school board make the determination.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that people cannot be stopped from going
to court, but if people do not like the choices of the school board
then they can complain and elect someone else.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said that he believed the litigation could be avoided
if the language indicating that the governing body shall require an
appropriate flag exercise to be held regularly as determined by the
governing body. Such language clarifies that the governing body
would make the decision.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that she did not have a problem with
that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to how Representative James
would feel about adding the language - "or National Anthem" - at
the end of line 12.
Number 1854
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that the committee adopt the following
amendment [Amendment 2]:
Page 1, line 7, before "."
Insert, ",as determined by the governing body"
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was so adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she understood the pledge and The
Star-Spangled Banner to be two different issues. "The language in
the pledge says who we are. The Star-Spangled Banner is the flag
living through war. It's a totally different issue all together.
It's respect to the flag, but in a different issue. What I'm
interested for children to understand is not war, but is about our
daily living where we have this, 'one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' Liberty and
justice for all is extremely important and 'the republic for which
this flag stands', those are the two important parts of the pledge
of allegiance. I think they are extremely important as a civic
lesson, if nothing else." Representative James did not have a
problem with the playing of The Star-Spangled Banner as it is
typical for interscholastic events, however, it does not take the
place of the pledge of allegiance.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that he made that
recommendation due to the use of the language, "an appropriate flag
exercise". He stressed, "We are either talking about the pledge or
not."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that she wondered how long this has
been working in the state of Washington and if they have had these
problems.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether Representative Rokeberg was concerned
with the language on line 7, "flag exercise" and would recommend
that language be replaced with "pledge of allegiance".
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed. He added that the current language
implies that there is something besides the pledge that would
qualify as "an appropriate flag exercise".
CHAIRMAN KOTT suggested the language, "students recite the pledge
of allegiance on a regular basis as determined by a local body."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out that the bill only speaks to
students who wish to remain silent. Perhaps, the language "anyone"
could be utilized instead of "students", with regard to reciting
the pledge or remaining silent.
Number 2102
CHAIRMAN KOTT clarified then that on line 7, the language would
read, "The governing body shall require that 'the pledge of
allegiance' be recited regularly." He asked whether that would
work.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that the beginning of the bill
refers to the United States and Alaska flags.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT did not foresee a lot of frivolous suing over
flag exercises.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that the original language
referring to "interscholastic events" started his train of thought
regarding what an "appropriate flag exercise" would be.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there would be any situation in which
the flag would be saluted without the flag.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES interjected and stated that one is not
supposed to salute the flag without it being present. She further
pointed out that there are rules regarding flag exercises and the
handling of the flag. Representative James emphasized the
importance of teaching students in public schools in America the
pledge. She acknowledged that those from different countries could
respect their own traditions as well as America's.
CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed with the original intent for students to
recite the pledge of allegiance.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed that the recitation of the pledge is as
important as Representative James' remembrance of Jehovah's
witnesses not participating in the pledge. Both illustrate our
freedom and is a good civic lesson. He reiterated the need to
refer to "anyone" and eluded to the need to not hold it against
those who do not participate.
Number 2397
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether Representative Croft was suggesting the
deletion of "Students" with "Any person".
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied yes. He moved that the committee
adopt Amendment 3 which reads as follows:
Page 1, line 9
Delete "Students"
Insert "Any person"
There being no objection, Amendment 3 was so adopted.
CHAIRMAN KOTT suggested at the end of line 12 inserting the
following language:
"If a person declines to participate in the recitation a
school district may not for evaluation purposes include
any reference to the student's or teacher's not
participating."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that she did not have a problem with
that.
TAPE 99-54, SIDE B
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN KOTT informed the committee that his suggested language
would be Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether Amendment 4 should refer to
the school district or the governing body.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said if the governing body is a local entity, as is
the case in Anchorage, Chairman Kott did not think it would have
the responsibility.
Number 0027
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether an REAA [Rural Education
Attendance Area] is a school district.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT mentioned that an REAA is a school district
under statute.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether a single-site school is a
school district.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out that the language in Amendment
4 could be broadened rather than specifying "a student or teacher".
She suggested that the language, "If a person declines to
participate that shall not be used for any purpose."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested that Chairman Kott's original
language would be appropriate if "a student or teacher" is deleted
and the language - "a person" - is inserted.
Discussion ensued regarding the best language to be utilize in
Amendment 4.
The committee stood at-ease from 2:37 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.
Number 155
CHAIRMAN KOTT clarified that conceptual Amendment 4 reads as
follows:
"A person may decline to participate. Such action shall
not be used for evaluation on any other purpose."
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there was any objection. There being
none, Amendment 4 was so adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that her children attend a public
school which is a Spanish emersion school. Every morning the
pledge is recited, however some mornings the pledge is recited in
Spanish. Would that be a problem?
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that a law addresses that.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said that it was food for thought. She
inquired as to whether it made a difference if the pledge was
recited in another language.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said that he believed the courts would find that the
intent of HB 192 was met if the pledge is recited in Spanish.
Number 0280
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to report HB 192, as amended, out of
the committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note(s). There being no objection, CSHB 192(JUD) was
so moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|