Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
04/29/2022 01:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB140 | |
| SB196 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 196 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 246 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 124 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 140 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 196-PUBLIC ED: SPEECH, DISCLOSE INST MATERIAL
2:23:06 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 196 "An Act relating to
transparency and compelled speech in public education."
CHAIR HOLLAND noted that this was the second hearing in this
committee and the intention was to hear public testimony.
2:23:30 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND opened public testimony on SB 196.
2:24:11 PM
LYNDA GIGUERE, representing self, Juneau Alaska, stated that SB
196 does not solve problems or make the lives of Alaskans
better. Instead, it could make the teacher's job untenable. She
viewed SB 196 as a distraction from real issues, and anti-
education. It seeks to divide an already fractured country. She
offered her view that its ultimate goal was to instill fear and
distress in teachers, all just to rally the base. She urged
members not to pass SB 196.
2:26:42 PM
PHILLIP MOSER, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, spoke in
opposition to SB 196. He was unsure whether there was a moral
argument that had not already been made for the obscene nature
of this bill. He viewed SB 196 as incredibly problematic. The
bill seeks to punish people for speech in the classroom. He
characterized it as similar to the "don't say gay bill" in
Florida. This bill would deputize regular citizens to punish
teachers, and it would create a clear pathway to do so.
MR. MOSER said this means teachers who are already underpaid in
Alaska would be subject to litigation from anyone at any point
for something as small as a gay teacher making reference to
their husband. A parent could bring a civil suit, which could be
costly for the teacher. He characterized it as a chilling effect
on teachers and schools. This bill could involve the attorney
general in numerous lawsuits.
MR. MOSER noted the issue of teachers and schools being subject
to litigation under the bill appears intended to erase any
mention of race, sex, or orientation from schools. He expressed
concern that people who fall under those categories would be at
risk should this bill pass.
2:29:03 PM
MR. MOSER said he testified several days ago on a bill
introduced by Senator Reinbold that would require every
political officer to read the Alaska Constitution and the
Declaration of Independence. He offered his view that it would
be illegal for teachers to mention that bill since they
inherently list issues based on sex and race. He asked members
not to support SB 196 because it was morally and ethically
horrendous.
2:30:37 PM
DAVID BOYLE, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, spoke in
support of SB 196 to help prevent students from being taught to
hate one another based on race. He stated that students need to
be able to read. He stated that he attended previous hearings on
the bill. Those who oppose the bill expressed concern that
students will not be taught about certain events. Alaska's
students can still learn how the United States evolved over
time. He recited a number of historical references to events and
listed a number of prominent historical figures who owned slaves
to illustrate his point. He stated that America is the best
place to live and raise kids.
2:34:06 PM
MR. BOYLE paraphrased a portion of the new business item number
39 from NEA.
B. Provide an already-created, in-depth, study that
critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness,
anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy,
cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism,
anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and
oppression at the intersections of our society, and
that we oppose attempts to ban critical race theory
and/or The 1619 Project.
MR. BOYLE urged members to move SB 196 from committee.
2:35:24 PM
JESSIE ALLOWAY, Solicitor General, Statewide Section Supervisor,
Opinions, Appeals, and Ethics, Civil Division, Department of
Law, Anchorage, Alaska, explained that the enforcement provision
would give the attorney general express authority to enforce the
law. It also grants the attorney general authority to issue
advisory opinions requested by the school district, charter
school, or public school.
2:35:58 PM
MS. ALLOWAY stated that the authority to bring a civil action is
not necessarily an expansion of the attorney general's
authority. The Alaska Supreme Court has held that the attorney
general has common law powers, except where limited by statute
or conferred on some other state agency. Under the common law,
the attorney general has the power to bring any action they
think is necessary to protect the public interest. This includes
the power to enforce an Alaska Statute. However, the attorney
general exercises that authority very rarely, in part due to
resources but also because that authority is used on matters of
significant public interest. At the previous hearing, Senator
Myers asked if the attorney general had this authority and, if
so, if it was used regularly. She reiterated that the attorney
general has the authority but rarely uses it.
2:37:18 PM
MS. ALLOWAY stated that the provision to issue advisory opinions
would be an expansion of the attorney general's authority and
would likely require a significant amount of the department's
resources. She acknowledged that the appellate section does
issue advisory opinions. Those opinions can be through the
government or other state agencies and the legislature. She
stated those were infrequent, but it takes a significant amount
of work to issue them. The other provisions that require the
attorney general to issue advisory opinions include ballot
initiatives and the Ethics Act. The Ethics Act allows the
attorney general to issue advisory opinions for state employees
and former state employees who may have questions about whether
they can perform certain work once they leave state employment
or enter private practice or employment. Those require the
attorney general to act within 60 days on completed requests.
Thus, there would be some back and forth. This would
significantly increase the areas in which the attorney general
would issue advisory opinions.
2:38:53 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND moved to adopt Amendment 1, work order 32-
LS0768\D.2.
32-LS0768\D.2
Marx
4/28/22
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HOLLAND
TO: CSSB 196(EDC)
Page 1, line 9, through page 2, line 22:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 2. AS 14.18.080(b) is amended to read:
(b) The Board of Regents shall adopt rules under
AS 14.40.170(b)(1) to implement AS 14.18.010 -
14.18.110 [THIS CHAPTER].
* Sec. 3. AS 14.18.100(b) is amended to read:
(b) A person aggrieved by a violation of
AS 14.18.010 - 14.18.110 [THIS CHAPTER] or of a
regulation or procedure adopted under AS 14.18.010 -
14.18.110 [THIS CHAPTER] as to postsecondary education
has an independent right of action in superior court
for civil damages and for such equitable relief as the
court may determine."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 5, following line 24:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) In this section,
(1) "school district" means a borough
school district, a city school district, a regional
educational attendance area, a state boarding school,
and the state centralized correspondence study
program;
(2) "state agency" means a department,
office, agency, state board, commission, public
corporation, or other organizational unit of or
created under the executive branch of state
government."
Page 5, line 25, through page 6, line 6:
Delete all material.
Page 6, lines 7 - 15:
Delete all material and insert:
"Sec. 14.18.190. Definitions. In AS 14.18.150 -
14.18.190, "public school" does not include the
University of Alaska or another postsecondary
institution."
2:39:11 PM
SENATOR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
2:39:23 PM
ED KING, Staff, Senator Roger Holland, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, explained that Amendment 1 would maintain that
the implementation and enforcement remedy sections in existing
law that cover the rest of AS 18 would extend to the new
provisions added by SB 196.
MR. KING stated that the existing language in AS 18 is treated
differently. The enforcement is by the State Board of Education
for K-12 and by the Board of Regents for the University of
Alaska. The bill proposes that the new law has a different
enforcement mechanism through the attorney general's office.
Amendment 1 would remove the provision to go through the
attorney general's office and maintains that all of the
enforcement actions for K-12 would go through the Board of
Education.
MR. KING said that Sections 2, 3, and 4 were deleted. However,
components of those sections were reinstituted that bind those
two provisions because the new provisions do not apply to the
university. Thus, the provisions related to the Board of Regents
do not include the university.
2:41:02 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether anything would prohibit someone
from taking an independent action though the courts.
MR. KING answered no. The enforcement by the Board of Education
would exist throughout the chapter, including the existing
language. The remedy provision in AS 14.18.100 would apply. He
read:
(a) A person aggrieved by a violation of this chapter
or of a regulation or procedure adopted under
this chapter as to primary or secondary education
may file a complaint with the board and has an
independent right of action in superior court for
civil damages and for such equitable relief as
the court may determine.
2:42:20 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND closed public testimony on SB 196.
2:42:26 PM
SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding that a private person
has a right of action. He asked whether they would need to
exhaust the remedy through the Board of Education before going
to court or if either option was available.
MR. KING responded that nothing in the bill changes the process
in existing law regarding filing a lawsuit. If that avenue needs
to be exhausted before court action is available to the person,
nothing in the bill would change that if the amendment is
adopted.
2:43:25 PM
MS. ALLOWAY responded that in this particular instance, where
the statute is granting a private right of action for an
individual, the person would not necessarily need to exhaust
their administrative remedy. She said she would need to research
this further before providing a definitive answer.
CHAIR HOLLAND referred to a fiscal note from the Department of
Law. He asked whether Amendment 1 would make the fiscal note
moot.
MS. ALLOWAY responded yes, because it would remove the necessity
for additional resources that would be required to provide
advisory opinions.
2:44:31 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether it would be more efficient to
require that these complaints go through the Board of Education
before a lawsuit can be filed. He expressed concern about legal
costs to school districts.
CHAIR HOLLAND deferred to Ms. Alloway to discuss whether the
state could restrict someone access to the courts.
2:45:23 PM
MS. ALLOWAY responded that there were provisions in statutes
that require a party to exhaust their administrative remedies.
The reason for that is to allow, in this case, the school board
to fix its own errors prior to litigation. She explained that
there would not be any legal issue if a provision within the
statutes required a party to exhaust the administrative
remedies. They would go through the administrative process and
once that process was completed, it could be appealed to the
superior court.
2:46:10 PM
SENATOR KIEHL suggested amending the bill to save legal costs.
CHAIR HOLLAND indicated that he would not pursue an amendment at
this time.
2:46:36 PM
SENATOR HUGHES removed her objection.
2:46:40 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND heard no further objection, and Amendment 1 was
adopted.
2:46:57 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND moved to adopt Amendment 2, work order 32-
LS0768\D.1.
32-LS0768\D.1
Marx
4/27/22
AMENDMENT 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HOLLAND
TO: CSSB 196(EDC)
Page 4, lines 25 - 27:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subparagraphs accordingly.
2:46:59 PM
SENATOR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
2:47:11 PM
MR. KING explained that Amendment 2 was a clean-up amendment to
remove duplicate language that resulted from an amendment that
passed in the previous committee of referral. He directed
attention to the language on page 4, lines 25-27 that was
significantly similar to the language on lines 28-30. He stated
that subparagraph (B) would not allow a person to compel a
student to believe those concepts described in paragraph (2),
whereas subparagraph (A) provides an unbound restriction.
Amendment 2 would remove subparagraph (A) and retain
subparagraph (B).
CHAIR HOLLAND noted it would also require renumbering subsequent
subparagraphs.
MR. KING agreed.
CHAIR HOLLAND characterized Amendment 2 as a clean-up amendment.
2:48:20 PM
SENATOR HUGHES noted that subparagraph (A) included the word
encourage" and subparagraph (B) did not. She asked whether
Amendment 2 would allow encouragement and if that language was
too gray.
2:49:04 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND stated that it would not disallow teachers and
other personnel from encouraging students. He said the committee
could make a conceptual amendment to add "encourage" before
"direct" in subparagraph (B) if so desired.
2:49:28 PM
SENATOR MYERS offered his view that using "encourage" was a bit
of an issue because subparagraphs (A) and (B) speak to what [a
teacher, administrator, or other employee] could not do.
However, the language on page 5, lines 15-18, indicates staff
could not prohibit voluntary participation in a training, a
seminar, continuing education, an orientation, or therapy. He
offered his view that to have staff direct or compel would be
problematic but to encourage implies that the student was
already considering participating. He said it seems confusing to
prohibit a voluntary action in one provision but allow it in
another. He suggested that removing "encourage" seemed
appropriate.
2:50:57 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND agreed that direct or compel was more active than
encourage.
2:51:07 PM
MR. KING stated that the reference in paragraph (2) [on page 4,
line 4] uses direct or otherwise compel, but it does not use
encourage, so for consistency, which is likely why the language
does not occur in paragraph (3)(B), which read, "...adhere to a
belief or concept described in (2) of this subsection ....
CHAIR HOLLAND asked him to restate the explanation.
MR. KING referred to paragraph (2) that read, "may not direct or
otherwise compel a student...." He reiterated that the word
"encourage" is not in the reference, so it would be more
consistent to not use it in subparagraph (B).
2:51:49 PM
At ease
2:52:08 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting and asked him to restate
the explanation one more time.
2:52:19 PM
MR. KING responded that the language in the bill was consistent
between the issue being discussed and the statute that was
referenced. Thus, a change to the statute being referenced would
require a change to the other statute.
SENATOR HUGHES expressed concern that students might sense
teachers were encouraging them to participate in order to be in
their good graces or get better grades. She suggested that if SB
196 became law and teachers could not direct or compel students
to participate, that if a problem arose, it could be addressed.
2:53:41 PM
SENATOR HUGHES removed her objection.
2:53:45 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND heard no further objection, and Amendment 2 was
adopted.
2:54:20 PM
SENATOR LORA REINBOLD, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
via teleconference, as sponsor of SB 196, stated that she agreed
with the amendments. She highlighted that it was critical to
have transparency in education.
2:54:56 PM
SENATOR KIEHL noted the committee discussed verbs. He asked
whether this bill would stop a school district from teaching
these concepts so long as they don't test students or make
students state that they believe the concepts.
2:55:29 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD responded that the bill was carefully worded.
She stated that it would not allow teachers to teach that
someone was inherently one way or another based on their skin
color. She stated that the state shouldn't fund teaching people
to hate one another based on the color of their skin or that the
country is inherently sexist or racist. She stated that the bill
clearly identifies the things that public funding should not be
used to teach. She offered her belief that about 13 states have
similar legislation. She noted that Senator Hughes amended the
bill in a previous committee, so she may have something to add.
2:57:05 PM
SENATOR HUGHES stated that nothing in the bill would prohibit a
teacher from discussing race or discrimination. They just can
direct students to take a specific position. She indicated that
she consulted Legislative Legal on whether to add clarifying
language to assure that teachers could teach history, such as
Martin Luther King or the Holocaust, and was assured that it was
not necessary to do so.
2:58:14 PM
MR. KING directed attention to page 5, line 12, subsection (b),
that outlines the types of things not prohibited, including
speech protected by the Constitution of the State of Alaska or
the Constitution of the United States, including voluntary,
uninduced, and uncoerced attendance or participation, and
educational in-school discussion of, or assignment of material
that incorporates the concepts so long as the school clarifies
that it does not sponsor, approve, or endorse the concepts or
material.
2:59:25 PM
SENATOR KIEHL offered his belief that the bill had irredeemable
problems. It would create a bizarre situation where a school
could teach American history, warts and all, but it couldn't
test students on the material because students would need to
affirm that the concepts were true. The bill is explicit that
teachers cannot require students to do so. He expressed concern
that the effect would be to remove parts of American history
from the schools, which was problematic.
SENATOR KIEHL recalled when he attended high school in Alaska,
students engaged in discussions on a wide variety of topics,
facts, and bad behavior in history. It was an important part of
the educational process. This bill wrenches any effect of
teaching that in an effort to cancel those ideas.
SENATOR KIEHL noted the bill had bizarre gaps. He wondered why
the bill cancels some ideas but not others. The bill doesn't
mention ableism. He stated that in the last hearing the
committee discussed that the bill doesn't cover oppression,
inferiority, or superiority based on class, such as caste
systems or the communist theories of class. He was unsure why
the bill would cancel some things considered un-American but not
others. He highlighted that the bill had numerous undefined
terms. He characterized the bill as one of cancel culture.
SENATOR KIEHL acknowledged that the legislature does not
consider a bill's cost to school districts because they don't
issue fiscal notes since school districts are not state
agencies. However, school districts are political subdivisions.
He expressed concern about the cost of monitoring the curricula
and lesson plans for every teacher.
3:03:23 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND disagreed that the bill would prevent testing
because it uses the language affirm. He offered his view that
what Senator Kiehl described was not the definition of affirm.
He asked how the bill would require school districts to monitor
every classroom when the bill asks teachers to post the
curricula.
SENATOR KIEHL responded that he was speaking to the potential of
costly lawsuits to the school districts if it does not include
the curricula, which would consist of lesson plans. Thus, school
districts must monitor what teachers teach or risk private
lawsuits.
CHAIR HOLLAND offered to discuss this at a later date.
3:04:56 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that Section 6 requires transparency, which
is subject to lawsuits. He indicated that the Association of
School Boards anticipated that mid-size school districts would
need a fulltime position to comply with provisions in the bill.
He stated that cost would be an administrative cost, using
resources that would not educate students. He stated that he
would oppose the bill because some provisions were
unconstitutional, that some topics would be canceled and others
would not, and a lot of American history would be "scrubbed"
from the classroom.
3:05:47 PM
SENATOR HUGHES offered her view that SB 196 would not scrub
history or stop classroom discussions about concepts or beliefs,
but it would disallow teachers from forcing students to take
certain positions on those concepts or beliefs. She suggested
that amendments could be made to bridge any gaps, such as adding
class. She offered her view that some things are happening in
the classroom that should be addressed, and she appreciated Mr.
Boyle reading the NEA resolution. She noted that parents have
concerns, and it is important for students to be open-minded and
develop critical thinking skills.
3:07:18 PM
SENATOR HUGHES moved to report the committee substitute (CS) for
SB 196, work order 32-LS0768\D, as amended, from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
3:07:41 PM
SENATOR KIEHL objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Senators Myers, Hughes, and Holland
voted in favor of reporting the committee substitute (CS) for SB
196 from committee and Senator Kiehl voted against it.
Therefore, CSSB 196(JUD) was reported from committee on a 3:1
vote.
CHAIR HOLLAND stated that the motion to report CSSB 196(JUD)
from committee passed on a vote of 3 yeas and 1 nay.