Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
02/05/2025 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Child Care in Alaska | |
| HB57 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 49 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 57-COMMUNICATION DEVICES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
3:49:27 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 57, "An Act relating to wireless
telecommunications devices in public schools; and providing for
an effective date." [Before the committee, adopted as a working
document on 1/31/25, was the proposed committee substitute (CS)
for HB 57, Version 34-LS0064\N, Bergerud, 1/28/25 ("Version
N").]
3:49:37 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS opened public testimony on HB 57.
3:50:12 PM
JIM MINNERY, President, Alaska Family Council, testified in
support of HB 57. He stated that the Alaska Family Council is a
faith-based public policy group that addresses issues related to
"life, marriage, parental authority, gender and human design,
religious freedom, and constitutional government." He stated
that there is a lot of support for HB 57 across the political
spectrum, from pro-life groups, parental rights groups, the
National Education Association (NEA), and teacher groups. He
addressed an area of opposition regarding parents' desire to
access students during the school day via cell phone,
particularly in the event of an emergency. He stated that he
read an article that argued that cell phone use in the event of
an emergency could be dangerous. He offered his support for HB
57.
3:52:48 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS, after ascertaining that there was no one else
who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 57.
3:53:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BURKE moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 57,
Version N, labeled 34-LS0064\N.2, Bergerud, 1/31/25, which read
as follows:
Page 1, line 10:
Following "device":
Insert "for medical purposes,"
Following "emergency":
Insert ","
Page 2, line 4:
Following "device":
Insert "for medical purposes,"
Following "emergency":
Insert ","
3:53:33 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:53:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BURKE offered her belief that the current
language did not appropriately address students who use their
phone for medical purposes. She explained that a diabetic
student might use their cell phone as a monitoring device for
glucose levels. She offered her belief that the language
"emergency" does not adequately support students who, for
medical purposes, may need to have their phone on their person
at all times.
3:54:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification on whether the
desire was to allow exemptions for emergencies and medical needs
or to allow exemptions for emergency medical needs.
3:55:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BURKE clarified that the intent is to allow for a
student to have their phone on their person for the purpose of
monitoring medical conditions.
3:55:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER offered an apology and stated that he had
misread the amendment.
3:56:24 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS removed his objection to the motion to adopt
Amendment 1 to HB 57, Version N.
3:56:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether there would be limitations
to the medical exemptions.
3:57:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BURKE stated that it would need to be a
documented medical condition that required accommodations. She
supposed that the parents and students would need to identify to
the school that need for accommodation.
3:58:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked about the intent for the process of
declaring accommodations to be eligible for medical exceptions
under Amendment 1 to HB 57, Version N.
3:58:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BURKE responded that the school districts would
determine the process through which a student would need to
apply for accommodations. She offered her assumption that
parents would declare medical accommodations annually during
enrollment periods. She stated that it is not her intention to
prescribe that process through the amendment.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS suggested that could be addressed in regulation,
and with guidance from the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED).
3:59:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER voiced concern that parents might falsify
their children's medical needs in order to access them via cell
phones during the school day.
4:00:31 PM
DEENA BISHOP, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development, responded that a student would need an
Individualized Educational Plan (IEP), or a 504 plan, in order
to qualify for exemptions to the cell phone ban. Additionally,
she noted that current policies require documentation of such
needs and are kept by the school's recording office.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP, in response to a follow-up question from
Representative Saddler, explained that a 504 plan is for a
student that does not have a learning disability but may need
other accommodations, such as a student with cochlear implants
who needs hearing support.
4:01:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER removed his objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 1 to HB 57, Version N. There being no further
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
4:02:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked Mr. Booth how the cell phone ban at
Palmer High School is enforced. He asked whether there are
inconsistent levels of enforcement from teachers, and if so, how
that is handled by the school.
4:02:59 PM
DAVE BOOTH, Principal, Palmer High School (PHS), as an invited
testifier, responded that, after implementing the cell phone ban
at Palmer High School, he appointed enforcement to the school
administrators, not the teachers. He stated that an
administrator was appointed to check in during every class,
during every period. He offered his belief that teachers should
not become disciplinarians in the classroom, as it might affect
their relationship with their students. Further, he noted that
the expectations placed on the students were very clear
regarding cell phone usage.
4:04:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked what the average punishment was for
students who had phones on them for a first-time offense versus
repeated offenses.
4:04:47 PM
MR. BOOTH responded that there is a progressive punitive system.
He explained that when a phone is turned into the office for the
first time, a parent is asked to come and pick it up. On the
second offense, the phone is required to be locked in a Yonder
Phone Pouch for a period of time. He explained that for
students with repeated infractions, the phone is taken at the
beginning of the day and returned at the end of the day. He
noted that PHS currently does not have any students who fall
under the last category and reiterated that students are
responsive to clear expectations and enforcement.
4:06:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked whether children make excuses that
they are allowed to have their cell phones as dictated by their
parents.
4:07:04 PM
MR. BOOTH responded that PHS uses 504 plans. He noted that they
review 504 plans during the enrollment process. He noted that
parents are very understanding. He commented that PHS has no
issues with children on documented 504 plans inappropriately
using their devices.
4:08:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated that the fiscal note for bill is
zero. He acknowledged that there would be no direct cost to the
department to develop a policy regarding cell phone use. He
predicted that there will likely be costs down the road,
particularly with the implementation of a cell phone ban. He
also anticipated costs from legal implications of a cell phone
ban, noting that a parent might argue that a cell phone ban
infringes on their First Amendment rights by not allowing
parents to contact their children during the school day.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER agreed with prior testimony stating that
attention is essential to education, the value of which
outweighs the entertainment value of phones. He offered his
belief that a cell phone ban is a heavy-handed response, but the
testimony had indicated the severity of the situation. He
stated that he would likely support the proposed legislation.
4:09:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE offered her belief that there should be
no cell phones in schools. She offered her concern regarding
local control. She offered her understanding that, under HB 57,
[Version N], the state would write a model policy, and schools
have the option of adopting the model policy or writing their
own policy. She asked how much flexibility the school districts
would be allowed, should the district elect to write its own
policy. Further, she asked whether there would be consequences
for not adopting a policy.
4:11:01 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP responded that there are statutes that allow
for DEED to enforce law. She remarked that DEED would first
communicate with schools regarding any failure of policy
adoption to identify any barriers to the adoption of a policy.
She asserted that the adoption of a statewide policy would make
enforcement among local schools easier. Further, she noted that
local educators could [place blame] on [DEED] as the
disciplinarians and allow students to maintain positive
relationships with their teachers, should there be any
opposition locally to a cell phone ban. She opined that Mr.
Booth is doing what DEED should be doing.
4:12:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE commented that she is disappointed in
the school districts for not tackling the issue at the local
level and thanked the commissioner for her work on the subject.
4:13:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK echoed Representative Saddler in
believing that the legislation was heavy-handed but stated that
the dialogue during committee hearings helped her realize the
scale of the issue.
4:14:09 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL moved to report CSHB 57, Version 34-LS0064\N,
Bergerud, 1/28/25, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
4:14:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON objected.
4:14:25 PM
[A roll call vote was started and voided.]
4:15:04 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Carrick, Coulombe,
Saddler, Hall, and Fields voted in favor of the motion to report
CSHB 57, Version 34-LS0064\N, Bergerud, 1/28/25, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Nelson voted against
it. [Representative Burke was teleconferenced and could not
vote on the motion.] Therefore, CSHB 57(L&C) was reported out
of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee by a vote of
5-1.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska Chamber-How Childcare Impacts Alaska Workforce Productivity and the State Economy.pdf |
HL&C 2/5/2025 3:15:00 PM |
|
| HB 57 Amendment #1 (N (1).pdf |
HL&C 2/5/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Public Comment Received - 2.5.25.pdf |
HL&C 2/5/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 57 |