Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
03/31/2014 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB45 | |
| HB189 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 45 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 189 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 45-ELECTRONIC BULLYING IN SCHOOLS
8:06:07 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 45, "An Act relating to harassment, intimidation,
or bullying by students attending a public school in the state."
8:06:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MIA COSTELLO, Alaska State Legislature, as a
joint prime sponsor of HB 45, reiterated that this would add
language to a definition portion of statute [language related to
electronic communication].
8:07:14 AM
SARAH PAGE, Staff, Representative Mia Costello, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of one of the joint sponsors of HB 45,
Representative Mia Costello, explained that this bill would
change the definition in statute related to bullying, by
inserting "electronic" and "communication" into the types of
communicative acts that could be considered as bullying,
harassment, or intimidation. This bill specifically addresses
bullying in public schools in Alaska.
8:08:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 2 of the memo from
Legislative Legal Services dated December 31, 2012 from Jean M.
Mischel, which read:
An "intentional written, oral, or physical act" does
not, in my opinion, exclude threats spoken through a
telephone or voice messaging system.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the Department of Law agrees
with the legislature's legal services in terms of the extent of
the current law.
REBECCA HATTAN, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State
Affairs Section, Department of Law, answered that she has read
Ms. Mischel's memo regarding HB 45. She said Ms. Mischel makes
an excellent point that she largely agrees with. This bill
would provide additional clarity that might make moot a legal
argument that the definition doesn't extend to electronic acts
which might not have been contemplated by the legislature when
the enabling legislation was passed. She offered her belief
that passage of HB 45 would make that argument moot.
8:10:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked about the specific distinction
between oral communication and physical act. He referred to
page 1, line 11 and asked for further clarification on the
effect of eliminating "communication", so the definition would
then read, "means an intentional written, electronic, oral or
physical act, ...." He further asked whether "communication" is
essential to this language.
MS. HATTAN deferred to the sponsor to clarify, but said it seems
that the language captures the ways students communicate with
each other continually evolves and this language recognizes new
forms of communication as it develops electronically.
8:11:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired about the scope of bullying,
for example, whether the activity needs to happen during school
or if evening or electronic communication can also be
considered.
MS. HATTAN acknowledged the importance of this question. She
characterized this as a complex question that has been the
subject of litigation in federal and state courts for many
decades. A 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case, Tinker vs. Des Moines,
is still used to answer that question. She said there is a
famous quote in which the high court agreed that students' free
rights should be protected and said, "Students don't shed their
constitutional rights at the school house gates." She said that
First Amendment rights exist; however, as a counterweight,
schools have a strong interest in promoting order and instilling
certain values in their students.
MS. HATTAN stated that a more recent U.S. Supreme Court case,
Morse v. Frederick, 2007 - the Juneau "Bong Hits for Jesus" case
asked a similar question. The speech at issue in that case did
not take place on school grounds but occurred during a school-
sponsored event held during school hours. The court held that
enough of a connection existed between the speech and the school
day that punishment was considered legitimate. The Morse Case
has been used in several cases throughout the U.S. related to
cyberbullying. These cases use the test in the Morse case to
answer the very question, "How tangential is this connection or
how substantial is this connection between the school day and
the speech." For example, a student may be so devastated by
comments made on Facebook or with other communication devices
that the student feels threatened by his/her peers; however,
these rules aren't clearly defined. She said that the cases
have been factually specific, noting that the Alaska Supreme
Court has yet to weigh in.
8:15:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how important the school hours were
in Morse v. Frederick.
MS. HATTAN answered that it was relevant. The most important
consideration was the value or lack thereof since people weren't
able to ascertain what the student tried to say with a strange
slogan unfurled on a banner ["Bong Hits for Jesus"]. In terms
of upholding the school district's right to mete out punishment,
the factors cited were that it took place during school hours at
a school-sponsored event. However, some of the more recent U.S.
Supreme Court decisions used the Morse v. Frederick ruling to
uphold school punishments that happened at home outside of
school hours.
8:16:14 AM
CHAIR GATTIS reported having attended a forum where students
brought this as a topic, and while some were not supportive of
HB 45, others remarked that they were being bullied. Although
the teenagers didn't want to give up any First Amendment rights,
these students also agreed that something needed to be done
since bullying harmed other students.
8:17:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said it is important to note that this
bill does not make "cyberbullying" a crime but the offense would
be reportable to a school official. He asked how often any type
of bullying is reported.
MS. HATTAN didn't know, but the deferred to the department.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested that schools may need to
decide how to handle these situations at a local level based on
the facts, but this bill will lead to schools taking action.
CHAIR GATTIS commented that HB 45 brings us forward to the world
of cyberspace.
8:19:33 AM
CHAIR GATTIS, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 45.
8:19:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 3, item 3, of the
aforementioned Legislative Legal memo, which read, "Whether
accomplished through electronic or other methods, bullying is
not described as a specific crime under our Model Penal Code
structure;...." He said this brings it back to the nexus of
school enforcement policies. He expressed concern that if it
isn't clear that school enforcement policies can control
cyberbullying that students could be charged with harassment
under the penal code. He preferred to have this matter handled
by the schools rather than to have students face criminal
charges. He stated support for the bill.
8:21:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated the sponsor statement indicates HB
45 will require school districts to create a policy against
electronic bullying, commonly known as cyberbullying. He said
he did not see this requirement in the bill and asked for
further clarification on what is being recommended.
8:21:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COSTELLO clarified that the bill further defines
the statute by adding "electronic" as a means of harassment,
intimidation or bullying. If school districts currently have
policies on bullying, it would require the districts to
recognize electronic or cyberbullying. These policies are
school district decisions, but the statute indicates the need to
recognize electronic communication. She related that she
introduced the bill on behalf of a high school student and the
Dimond High School student government classes have passed a
resolution supporting HB 45. These high school students
recognize that the school environment includes electronic
communications and it helps to have a policy.
8:23:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER acknowledged the current statutory
language.
8:23:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to report HB 45 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 45 was reported from the
House Education Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB189 Ver O.PDF |
HEDC 3/31/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 189 |
| HB189 Ver O Sectional.PDF |
HEDC 3/31/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 189 |
| HB189 Ver O Explanation of Changes.PDF |
HEDC 3/31/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 189 |
| HB189 Sponsor Statement.PDF |
HEDC 3/31/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 189 |
| HB 189 fiscalNote DOA.pdf |
HEDC 3/31/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 189 |
| HB 189 fiscalNote DOA - Public Defender.pdf |
HEDC 3/31/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 189 |
| HB 189 fiscalNote - EED.pdf |
HEDC 3/31/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 189 |
| HB 189 fiscalNote - DOL.pdf |
HEDC 3/31/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 189 |
| HB 189 fiscalNote - DOC.pdf |
HEDC 3/31/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 189 |