Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
04/17/2024 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB338 | |
| HB386 | |
| HB105 | |
| HB338 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 386 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 338 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 105-SEX/REPRODUCTION EDUCATION; SCHOOLS
7:23:02 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 105, "An Act relating to parental rights in a
child's education; relating to access to school records;
relating to sex education, human reproduction education, and
human sexuality education; relating to school disciplinary and
safety programs; and providing for an effective date." [Before
the committee, adopted as the working document on 4/15/24, was
the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 105, Version 33-
GH1072\O, Bergerud, 4/13/24 ("Version O").]
REPRESENTATIVE GROH moved to adopt Amendment 2 to Version O,
labeled 33-GH1072\O.7, Bergerud, 4/16/24, which read:
Page 3, following line 13:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(g) A school district shall maintain a database
of which pronouns are approved to use in reference to
each student. The department shall regularly audit the
database for compliance with AS 14.03.016(a)(7)."
[An inaudible objection was made by a committee member.]
7:23:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH explained that Amendment 2 would require
school districts to maintain a database of approved pronouns.
It would also require that the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) regularly audit the database for compliance
with the law.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER opined that Amendment 2 sounds like a
tremendous waste of money.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD agreed that another database would not be
necessary.
7:25:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY suggested that the database could be helpful
in preventing teachers from being sued for using the wrong
pronoun.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH urged the committee's support of Amendment
2, which would address a gap in the law to make it more workable
in attaining its goal.
7:27:10 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gray and Groh voted
in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives Allard, Carpenter, C.
Johnson, Sumner, and Vance voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 2-5.
7:27:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Version
O, labeled 33-GH1072\O.8, Bergerud, 4/16/24, which read:
Page 3, following line 13:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(g) A local school board shall, in consultation
with parents, teachers, and school administrators,
adopt policies recognizing the constitutional rights
of persons who are not school district employees when
the persons are on school grounds and at school
events, including parents, students, and visitors, to
exercise speech unconstrained by proscriptive or
restrictive speech requirements, including the use of
preferred pronouns."
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD objected.
7:27:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER explained that Amendment 1 would insert
a new subsection (g). He indicated that the proposed amendment
would emphasize the constitutional rights of visitors and
parents who are not employees of the school district.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked for an example of Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER stated that parents and students would
retain their First Amendment rights to recognize or not
recognize [the preferred pronouns] as long as it's not impolite
or offensive.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER said he would not want to give visitors
the right to scream pronouns in his child's kindergarten class.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER said that is not the intent of
Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER said if that is not the intent, then
perhaps the language should be changed to reflect that.
7:33:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY pointed out that politeness is not a
requirement. He asked whether unpolite speech would also be
protected by Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER expressed his hoped that school policy
would require students and teachers to be polite to each other,
and that it would not need to be prescribed in state law. He
said Amendment 1 is intended to protect parents and visitors
from being forced into using pronouns "that don't make any
sense."
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether visitors would be held liable
for failing to use the preferred pronouns without Amendment 1.
7:35:57 PM
DEBORAH RIDDLE, Division Operations Manager, Innovation and
Education Excellence, Department of Education and Early
Development, deferred to a legal expert.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked Legislative Legal Services whether
visitors would be expected to follow school rules without
Amendment 1.
7:37:35 PM
MARGARET BERGERUD, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, said currently, visitors have First Amendment
rights to address individuals in their preferred manner. She
shared her understanding that schools cannot enforce the use of
preferred names or pronouns on visitors. She added that it's
reasonable to assume that most schools have community standards
and community guidelines that enforce some sort of politeness
standard.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER clarified that nothing in the bill would
create individual liability.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD said that by her reading of Amendment 1,
parents and students would be able to call another student
anything they want.
7:40:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER directed attention to page 2,
[paragraph] 7, and asked whether it would be possible for a
school district to create a school policy that requires students
to refer to other students and/or teachers by their preferred
pronouns.
MS. RIDDLE answered yes, school districts can make policy about
managing communication between students and teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER stated that Amendment 1 is trying to
get at that very thing.
7:42:45 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 7:42 p.m. to 7:45 p.m.
7:45:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
1 to strike "including" on line 7 and replace it with
"regarding."
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD objected.
7:46:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER explained that without making this change,
schools would not be able to restrict speech in any manner. He
opined that visitors should not have an unconstrained right to
free speech and scream obscenities in a kindergarten class, for
example, nor should school districts be required to adopt such a
policy.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked what action a teacher would take if a
student insists on using pronouns other than the approved
pronouns.
MS. BERGERUD said if Version O were to become law, teachers
would be bound to use the pronouns on the permission slip.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether teachers would be required to
notify the parents in this scenario.
MS. BERFERUD stated that there is no parental notification
requirement in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER said he recognized Conceptual Amendment
1 as a friendly amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 was
adopted.
7:51:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER removed his objection to Amendment 1, as
amended.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY objected.
7:51:50 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Allard, Carpenter,
C. Johnson, Sumner, and Vance voted in favor of Amendment 1, as
amended. Representatives Groh and Gray voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1, as amended, passed by a vote of 5-2.
7:52:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH said he would not be offering Amendment 3.
7:52:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY said he would not be offering Amendment 4.
He moved to adopt Amendment 5 to Version O, labeled 33-
GH1072\O.9, Bergerud, 4/16/24, which read:
Page 1, line 5, following "prevention;":
Insert "relating to required education for
children committed to the custody of the Department of
Family and Community Services;"
Page 5, following line 22:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(g) Notwithstanding AS 14.03.016(a)(2) and (3)
and (e) of this section, a school shall ensure that a
child committed to the custody of the Department of
Family and Community Services receives
(1) sex education, human reproduction
education, and human sexuality education under this
section;
(2) sexual abuse and sexual assault
awareness and prevention education under AS 14.30.355;
and
(3) teen dating violence and abuse
awareness and prevention education under
AS 14.30.356."
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD objected.
7:52:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY explained that Amendment 5 would require
children in the custody of the Office of Childrens Services
(OCS), [Department of Family and Community Services], to receive
comprehensive sex education, Bree's Law, and Aaron's Law.
7:53:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked what age group this would apply
to.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY answered that age group covered by the bill.
7:53:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked at what age these kids would be
taught this comprehensive sex education.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked Ms. Riddle what age children were
taught Aaron's Law and Bree's Law.
MS. RIDDLE offered to follow up with the requested information.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY directed the question to Ms. Bergerud.
MS. BERGERUD did not know the answer.
7:55:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER, citing page 5, subsection (f), shared
his understanding that the required training would not apply to
kindergarteners. Nonetheless, he asked whether Amendment
Kindergarten; he asked whether Amendment 5 would apply to all
other age groups.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY said the intent is not to expand sex
education to new age groups. He clarified that the intent of
Amendment 5 is to ensure that children in the custody of OCS are
receiving this education and cannot be opted out by a foster
parent.
7:57:02 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gray and Groh voted
in favor of Amendment 5. Representatives Allard, Carpenter, C.
Johnson, Sumner, and Vance voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 5 failed by a vote of 2-5.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY said he would not be offering Amendment 6.
CHAIR VANCE sought questions on Version O, as amended.
7:58:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY directed attention to page 2, lines 21-26 of
the bill, and asked whether children could still be referred to
by their peers by their preferred pronouns even if those
pronouns differ from the ones on the permission slip.
MS. BERGERUD answered yes, that is a fair characterization.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY sought to confirm that as long as the school
employees follow the names on the permission slip, there's no
need for parents to be notified that the child is using a
different name or pronoun.
MS. BERGERUD said there's nothing in this bill that would
require that sort of notification.
8:00:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD directed attention to page 2, line 24, and
asked whether schools could be sued by not enforcing the
permission slips.
MS. BERGERUD clarified that her answer about parental
notification was intended to be limited to a student that is
going by a different set of names or pronouns amongst their
peers.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD disagreed with Ms. Bergerud's
interpretation. She asserted that the school would be required
to notify the parents if the child is being referred to by
something other than the names or pronouns on the permission
slip.
8:02:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER shard his understanding that Section 7
only refers to the pronoun used by the public school to address
or refer to the child in person and makes not reference to peer
groups. He opined that this section is inadvisable because if a
parent changes the child's preferred name to "attack
helicopter," that parent could proceed to sue the school if a
teacher does not properly use that name. He added that he is
unclear about the goal.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked Mr. Ballinger whether schools would
be required to notify the parents if a student is being called
anything other than the names or pronouns identified on the
permission slip and there would be a right to pursue legal
action.
8:05:02 PM
BOB BALLINGER, Staff, Representative Sarah Vance, Alaska State
Legislature, said the question would be how widespread that is.
He shared his understanding that if a different name is being
used by the peer group and it's not that widespread, then the
bill would not require specific notification. Conversely, if
the school is using that name, then the parents should be
notified.
8:06:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY posed a hypothetical scenario in reference
to page 2, line 4 of Version O. If the U.S. Secretary of
Transportation, Pete Buttigiege, were speaking to an elementary
school and mentioned that he has a husband, he asked whether
that would be considered a "matter of sexuality" and require a
signed permission slip.
MR. BALLINGER answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether parents have rights if their
child is not using the name or pronouns on the permission slip.
MS. RIDDLE did not know the answer.
8:10:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD referred to lines 21-26 and asked whether
the school district would have a legal obligation to inform the
parents if their child is not being called by the parent
requested name.
MS. BERGERUD shared her understanding that parents' rights would
be violated if the school employees were not following the
permission slips; however, peers would not be bound by anything
in these provisions, which could change depending on which
regulations were adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked whether the school would be
violating the law if the school knows that students are calling
the child by something other than the name requested by the
parents.
MS. BERGERUD answered no, because the language says, "used by a
public school" as opposed to "used in a public school."
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD disagreed with Ms. Bergerud's
interpretation and opined that the school would be obligated to
inform the parents in writing of the right to pursue legal
action against the school district.
8:15:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH referenced the high rates of child sexual
abuse, sexual assault, sexually transmitted diseases, and
unintended pregnancies in Alaska and asked how the legislation,
which creates barriers to student access to sex education, would
improve those health outcomes.
MS. RIDDLE pointed out that curriculum choices lie with the
district.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH said the bill would change Alaska law from
opt out to opt in, thereby reducing access to sex education. He
asked whether [the state] would be going in the wrong direction
by cutting off this access to school age children who could
benefit from it.
MS. RIDDLE declined to talk about policy. She reiterated that
the department would create regulations in the best interest of
the students if this law were to pass.
8:19:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER said he agreed with certain parts of the
bill; however, he highlighted several problems with the bill,
including Section 3 and how it interacts with Section 1.
CHAIR VANCE invited Mr. Ballinger to provide closing remarks and
to address Representative Groh's question.
MR. BALLINGER explained that opt-in requirements ensure that
there is contact with the parents. He emphasized the importance
of engaging parents in the process for students' successful
outcomes.
8:23:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked what means a school district has to
force a child to use a certain name or pronoun. He shared his
belief that the opt-in requirement would result in fewer people
receiving this very necessary education, as it's easy to miss
permission slips to opt in. Lastly, he asked what problems the
bill seeks to solve.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH said he likes the truancy provision, which
addresses a real problem in Alaska. Based on his experience as
a prosecutor, he expressed concern that the bill would lead to
negative outcomes and as a result, he said he would not be
supporting the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER said he hopes that the bill could
reverse the trend of parents pulling their kids from schools for
alternative sources of education, citing the opt-in provision
specifically.
CHAIR VANCE stated that the bill would reaffirm the rights of
the parents and encourage relationships. She expressed her hope
that the opt-in provision would open a dialogue between teachers
and parents who do not opt in, and that teachers would be
looking for cues and signals of abuse.
8:30:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD moved to report CSHB 105, Version 33-
GH1072\O, Bergerud, 4/13/24, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH objected.
8:30:56 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Allard, Carpenter,
C. Johnson, Sumner, and Vance voted in favor of reporting
Version O, as amended, from committee. Representatives Gray and
Groh voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 105(JUD) was reported
out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.