Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
03/17/2014 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB210 | |
| HB318 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 210 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 318 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 210-STUDENT RESTRAINT, SECLUSION, PSYC DRUGS
8:04:01 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 210, "An Act relating to the administration of
psychiatric medication to a student; relating to crisis
intervention training for school personnel; and relating to
restraint, escort, and seclusion of students in public and
private schools." [Before the committee was Version I, adopted
as a working draft on 2/12/14.]
8:04:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 210, Version T, labeled 28-LS0852\T,
Mischel, 2/25/14, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
8:05:21 AM
VASILIOS GIALOPSOS, Staff, Representative Charisse Millett,
Alaska State Legislature, explained the four changes in the new
version, Version T as compared to Version I. He said the section
that dealt with the conditions of the dispensation of medication
was removed since the purpose was to identify drugs for chemical
restraint, but the committee and the stakeholders raised issues.
He indicated that the definition of chemical restraint was
changed reflect the definition used by the federal Medicaid and
Medicare Services program. [On page 4, line 31, and page 5,
lines 1-2, subsection (g), which read, "chemical restraint"
means a psychopharmacologic drug that is used on a student for
discipline or convenience and that is not required to treat a
medical symptom;".
MR. GIALOPSOS said the sponsor felt that the definition gives a
succinct and clear scope of the intent of the medication and
something that no parent or educator would want seen performed
without having any of the encumbrances seen in [Version I].
MR. GIALOPSOS stated secondly, the term "physically escort" is
removed entirely from Version T. The commissioner and educators
suggested these changes, since the original intent was to ban
physically escorting a child in a manner that restricted their
breathing. He indicated that would have been a redundancy since
that person would have been physically restrained in a manner to
restrict their breathing, but it could have had a "chilling"
effect at a time when school personnel have necessary physical
contact with a student "having a meltdown." He said this is
especially helpful for high school and middle school students
and the schools need compassionate teachers.
MR. GIALOPSOS reported that private and religious schools were
also explicitly exempted for two reasons. First, those schools
were exempted due to an absence of enforcement mechanisms.
Secondly, having a legal framework in place in public schools
allows parents in private and religious schools to seek redress,
which is what has happened in many other states.
8:08:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 6, lines 4-6, Sec. 4,
which states a private or religious school is "exempt from other
provisions of law and regulations relating to education except
law and regulations relating to physical health, fire safety,
sanitation, immunization, and physical examinations." The
stated purpose is students' physical health. He wanted to
ensure this language doesn't exempt these schools from potential
criminal restraint and is limited to laws and regulations
relating to education.
MR. GIALOPSOS answered that he is correct. He referred to lines
2-6, which is language that currently exists in statute that
talks about existing exemptions. This would not allow any
school to break the law. He reported that a 20-year old
Department of Law opinion on corporal punishment advised that
private and religious schools can use corporal punishment but
cannot violate the laws in terms of assaulting students. He
concluded the same rationale would apply in this instance.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Version T as before the committee.
8:11:09 AM
LUCY HOPE, Director, Student Support Services, Matanuska-Susitna
Borough School District (MSBSD), said the district has had
policies and procedures regarding the use of restraint and
seclusion in place since 2008. The administrative regulations
adopted by the MSB School Board state that restraint and
seclusion may only be used if the student's behavior poses an
imminent danger of physical injury to the student or to another
person. She said seclusion is also specifically defined in that
regulation as is the need for constant supervision,
documentation, and parent notification. The process of
implementation of restraint is described in the certification
course by David Mandt and Associates, taught by a district
employee and must be reviewed annually by staff members needing
certification. The MSBSD's trainer works about 62 days per year
providing training to 350 staff.
8:12:38 AM
MS. HOPE related the MSBSD has in the past worked with smaller
districts and is willing to provide training needs for training
fees. She stated that the documentation, parent contact, and
review of these incidents are specified in the MSBSD's policy,
similar to those outlined in the bill. In addition, the MSBSD
requires a school nurse or designee check the student during and
following any restraint or seclusion. She said that changing
behavior is best accomplished by strong and healthy
relationships between adults and children and adults build on
these relationships to teach skills, including skills to manage
anger and frustration. She related that the Mandt [System,
Inc.] training is based on developing those relationships with
students. The training teaches students replacement behaviors
and helps the child deescalate behavior. She emphasized that it
also focuses on how to avoid using restraint with students. She
noted that not all staff are trained due to cost and time
constraints; however, appropriate personnel is trained to
address the potential to use restraint or seclusion. She
concluded that this would not add additional burden and would
underline and underscore the MSBSD's policy for student safety.
She highlighted one portion of the bill that the MSBSD does not
have to currently report to the EED, and the MSBSD collects the
data so it could be reported, but it might result in additional
costs to the EED.
8:14:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for the district's current policy
if a child acts out in a class. She related her understanding
that it typically means isolating the child. She asked whether
the new policy would cause the removal of all children from a
classroom to allow staff to handle the child.
MS. HOPE answered that seclusion would only be used when a child
poses a danger to self or others and would not be used with
students who were acting up. She stated that seclusion is
clearly defined in statute and is not a "time out" or part of
the hierarchy of discipline or positive behavior support.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD described an incident involving scissors
she encountered as a substitute teacher.
MS. HOPE responded that in that type of situation trained staff
should be available to deal with escalating behavior. She
acknowledged it can be difficult for substitute teachers, but
there should be procedures in place.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said the "big picture" includes the
other students in the classroom who should be least interrupted.
She wanted to ensure that the students who want to learn are not
being disenfranchised.
MS. HOPE understood her concern.
8:17:35 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked how long she has been working in the district
as a policymaker.
MS. HOPE answered this is her seventh year as a director, but
she has taught in the district since the 1980s. She received
training on de-escalation techniques as a teacher, but the
training has improved over the years.
CHAIR GATTIS lauded Ms. Hope's expertise. She shared the
concern about the reporting aspect. She asked for further
clarification on whether the bill outlines proper statewide
policy.
MS. HOPE agreed.
8:19:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said he appreciated the training
component in HB 210. He stated that applied behavioral analysis
(ABA) is a philosophy and principle that is wonderful in
modifying behavior of special needs and regular students. He
hoped that the techniques embrace these principles.
MS. HOPE answered that it does work on the theory of reinforcing
good behavior and addresses misbehavior with teaching
replacement behaviors and clear-cut consequences. She agreed it
provides the backbone of the ABA, which reduces unwanted
behaviors.
8:21:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON expressed concern about notification
procedures and asked for further clarification on the MSBSD's
guidelines for notifying parents.
MS. HOPE answered that the district tries to notify parents on
the same day although it isn't always possible; however, the
policy is to notify parents within 24-hours. The district
incident form captures the time and who contacted the parent.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for further clarification on
behaviors that require notification.
MS. HOPE responded that students are often sent to the office,
which may or may not result in parental notification; however,
each time a student is taken out using physical action or for
seclusion, notification does occur.
8:22:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked about procedures that include
individualized education programs (IEPs).
MS. HOPE said the techniques and use of seclusion are laid out
in an IEP team meeting and documented in the IEP.
8:23:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to the student restraint and
seclusion requirements in Section 3 [page 2-3] of HB 210. He
asked whether these requirements ask too much of teachers or
aides.
MS. HOPE answered no; the teachers and aides in these programs
have a tremendous amount of training and background as well as
insight into students and which tools to use. She acknowledged
asking someone without training to do so would be asking for too
much.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER agreed.
8:25:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III asked whether including a written report
that is maintained in a student's record raises any concern for
that information becoming public or if the student's record is
confidential in perpetuity.
MS. HOPE answered it would never be made public and is kept
confidential but parents may give written permission upfront.
8:26:39 AM
CLAYTON HOLLAND, Director, Pupil Services, Kenai Peninsula
Borough School District (KPBSD), testified in support of HB 210.
He said Ms. Hope's testimony covered much of what he wanted to
say. The KPBSD has followed most of what is proposed in HB 210
for several years, including a reporting system. The district
already reports to the state on the number of restraints. The
district hasn't had any seclusion incidents to report. Every
school has a minimum of two trained staff and their trainers are
classified staff in the district. He offered that how schools
look at students and student behavior has been better addressed
and has moved to focus on how to help students become successful
in school, including ABA, or other techniques. He characterized
it as a cultural shift that appears to be happening and
restraint is rarely used. He supported other districts using
these techniques and trends.
8:28:57 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether the bill is a clarification of what
is already occurring in the district.
MR. HOLLAND answered yes.
8:29:43 AM
JEANNE GERHARDT-CYRUS, Parent, stated support for HB 210,
paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
My husband was called to school to witness a 250 pound
principal lying on top of our 9 year old daughter, who
was crying and screaming, "Get off of me, I can't
breathe, you're breaking my arm."
This is not Education!
I am a parent of a child who was restrained multiple
times in grades 1-8. My daughter experiences prenatal
exposure to alcohol and is one of the few in rural
areas to have received a diagnosis.
My daughter experienced high anxiety in school. She
would self-accommodate by hiding under her desk or
removing herself from the classroom situation which
caused visual/verbal overload.
Unfortunately, the teacher's reaction to this "non-
compliance" was usually to get closer to her face, use
more words and talk louder. Far from encouraging
"compliance", this caused increased anxiety and my
daughter would attempt to leave the classroom.
When prevented from self-accommodating, i.e., boxed in
a corner; my daughter would act out physically.
Additionally harmful-staff restraining was untrained,
non-certified and multiple. We had reports of two
adults carrying my daughter down the hall held by arms
and legs towards seclusion.
My daughter was subsequently diagnosed with PTSD.
This year, my daughter is on the honor roll as a
freshman in high school. We are working with the
Complex Behavioral Collaborative [(CBC)] and the
teachers allow her to self-accommodate. Her anxiety
is much reduced and she able to excel in school.
Between her efforts, those of the CBC, staff, and
parents in collaboration, everyone is safer, and she
is reaching towards her potential.
This is Education!
Our students AND staff need training in approved de-
escalation techniques. Inappropriate and unnecessary
restraint and seclusion needs to stop. The physical
psychological damage is too high a price to pay.
8:32:44 AM
MS. GERHARDT-CYRUS paraphrased her daughter's testimony, as
follows:
My history with restraint and seclusion is bad if not
worse with all the people that got hurt because of me.
I have no friends cause everyone [Indisc.]. It was so
bad that when I was in 8th grade I went to a treatment
facility. This year with the right services and no
restraints or seclusion I am doing much better and
have been on the honor roll since the beginning of the
year, due to the fact that I can walk out and sign out
when I need to and go for a walk and clear my head.
Thank you.
8:33:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON appreciated the testimony. She
acknowledged the progress within the school district for meeting
Ms. Gerhardt-Cyrus's daughter. She asked if Ms. Gerhardt-Cyrus
supports the bill.
MS. GERHARDT-CYRUS emphasized that the bill is important. She
related that she had once encouraged her daughter to leave
school and obtain a GED, but now her daughter is hoping to be on
the honor roll for four years.
8:34:58 AM
MIKE COONS stated he is retired but that he has worked in the
area of rescue and life support for over 22 years as a
paramedic, including training others in life support. He
praised the Mandt [System, Inc.] training, which is effective
and important. First, Mandt [System, Inc.] is used when the
person is completely out of control and needs to be restrained
to protect the person or others. Second, it's important to
protect the teacher and students. He referred to Representative
Reinbold's example and stressed the importance of removing the
other students from any situation with scissors, knives, or
other sharp implements. He offered suggestions to avoid
asphyxia, including putting the person on his/her side. He
offered that local fire districts are able to host Mandt
[System, Inc.] training for a nominal fee. In closing, he
encouraged the more people who have the training the better off
a school will be.
8:39:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification on the Mandt
[System, Inc.].
MR. COONS suggested that crisis intervention training for the
responders after a major incident includes post action
debriefing.
8:40:29 AM
PAM RONCONE, Crisis Prevention Institute, introduced herself and
said she is available for questions.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for further clarification on the
acronym "MANDT."
MS. RONCONE pointed out the acronym is "MANDT" but she did not
see it spelled out on the website.
8:41:42 AM
RON COWAN, Legal Rights Advocate/Investigator, Disability Law
Center of Alaska, stated support for HB 210, and clarified that
Mandt is not an acronym but rather the name of the man, David
Mandt, who created the technique. He continued his testimony,
paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to comment
on this proposed legislation on behalf of the
Disability Law Center of Alaska, the State's
designated Protection & Advocacy system for people who
experience a disability. I am the primary abuse and
neglect investigator for our agency, and have
previously served as the State's Long-Term Care
Ombudsman and as a regulator.
As many of you already know, the use of restraint and
seclusion in schools has become a much talked about
issue over the past 10 or more years. The main
reasons for this are the number of injuries and even
deaths that have been linked to the use of restraint
and seclusion in schools. So too, some studies and
investigations have revealed the inappropriate or
misuse of restraint and seclusion in schools.
Legislation to address these concerns has been
introduced in Congress and many states have adopted or
are developing statutes and regulations to provide
rules and conditions for the use of restraints and
seclusion.
8:43:17 AM
MR. COWAN continued reading from a prepared statement,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
In our own State, we have received complaints about
students as young as 3 years old being held in
physical restraints by school staff or being picked up
and carried to rooms they can't leave because the door
is locked or someone holds the door handle or puts a
foot or body against the door. In some schools,
utility closets have been used that have no windows or
means to monitor the student for safety. In other
schools make-shift cubicles or large box-like devices
have been built out of plywood. In yet other schools,
padded mats like those used in physical education
classes have been stood up and held by staff as they
surround a student so that he or she is unable to
leave. Frequently, these interventions might not be
viewed by school staff as "seclusion" because a staff
member is present. As a result, even though the
student was subjected to the same potential risks for
injury and trauma as if he or she had been in
seclusion alone, the parents would not necessarily be
notified. In these cases, the parents would not be
alerted to observe for possible trauma, nor was there
a requirement for school staff to conduct additional
assessments of the behaviors, review interventions, or
develop positive behavioral supports with the
participation of the parents, that might preclude
future unsafe behavior. Given the language and
safeguards of HB 210, the above scenario is less
likely to occur and it would create consistent
policies and practices throughout the State.
8:44:42 AM
MR. COWAN continued reading from a prepared statement, as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
The current language of HB 210 provides numerous
protections to those students who may be subjected to
the use of restraint or seclusion, a large percentage
of whom experience a disability. These required
safeguards include notice to parents; written reports;
the use of restraint and seclusion only in emergent
circumstances where other interventions are not
successful; termination of the restraint or seclusion
as soon as the unsafe behavior has subsided; staff
training of an approved program; continuous monitoring
of a student in seclusion; review and analysis of
plans and assessments following the use of restraint
and seclusion; and finally, annual reporting to the
State.
8:45:17 AM
MR. COWAN continued reading from a prepared statement, as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Restraint and seclusion are not evidence-based
educational, therapeutic or behavioral program
interventions. The use of restraint and seclusion is
indicative of the failure of other therapeutic
interventions, not success and therefore should only
be used in rare circumstance. Under the best
circumstances, restraint and seclusion are used only
when a student is displaying behaviors that are unsafe
for the student or others, or where those behaviors
are deemed to be imminent, and where other
interventions are not or have not been successful in
ameliorating the behavior that is unsafe. The
restraint and seclusion is terminated as soon as the
unsafe behavior has stopped. The circumstances
surrounding the unsafe behavior, the unsafe behavior
itself, and the interventions attempted or considered
are re-evaluated, with changes in the student's plan
or additional staff training occurring as necessary.
Under the worst of circumstances, restraint and
seclusion are used when less aggressive, less
restrictive interventions may have been successful in
preventing or mitigating the unsafe behavior or when
they are used for convenience, punishment or to bring
about compliance. As stated earlier, the use of
restraint and seclusion may result in injury or death;
they may also result in creating a traumatic
experience, often to a child whose behavior stems from
other traumatic experiences or a disability.
HB 210 provides needed added protections to students,
while ensuring parents are consistently made aware of
circumstances that may be taking away students'
opportunities for learning, placing their child at
risk, and giving parents the opportunity to work with
school staff to develop interventions that enhance
rather than restrict student learning. Thank you very
much.
8:46:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted a previous testifier suggested post
action training. He asked whether he has any recommendation on
this.
MR. COWAN answered that many of the interventions that are used
include the debriefing aspect and is an important element in
programs that might be reviewed by the EED.
CHAIR GATTIS asked for the sponsor's comments.
8:48:13 AM
MR. GIALOPSOS, on behalf of Representative Millett,
directed attention to page 4, lines [10-18, subsection
(e)], which read:
(e) A school district shall ensure that a review
process is established and conducted for each incident
that involves restraint or seclusion of a student.
The review must include
(1) staff review of the incident;
(2) follow-up communication with the student and
the student's parent or legal guardian;
(3) review of and recommendations for adjusting
or amending procedures, strategies,
accommodations, individualized education plans,
or other student behavior plans, or for
additional staff training.
8:49:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the post-incident review
could result in no additional recommendations.
MR. GIALOPSOS deferred to the Disability Law Center of Alaska
for comment.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said he couldn't conceive of a system
that would require additional changes for the sake of obliging
the statutory directional changes.
8:50:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to page 4, line 13 of Version
T, which requires staff review of the incident. She offered her
belief that should happen fairly soon after the incident since
it also benefits staff.
MR. GIALOPSOS did not believe the sponsor would object to an
amendment to include an expeditious staff review so long as it
doesn't impede the function of the school.
CHAIR GATTIS agreed.
8:51:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, on
page 4, line 11, after "conducted" insert "as soon as
practicable after" and delete "for".
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested Conceptual Amendment 1 should
be on line 13, which read, "staff review of the incident;
perhaps adding "as soon as possible."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked to change Conceptual Amendment 1,
on page 4, line 12 of Version T, after, "review" add, "must take
place as soon as practicable after the incident, and ...."
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, upon request read Conceptual Amendment
1, which read, "on page 4, line 12 of Version T, after, "review"
add, "must take place as soon as practicable after the incident,
and ....""
8:54:15 AM
CASSIE WELLS, Director, Student Services, North Slope Borough
School District (NSBSD); President, Council of Administrators of
Special Education, offered support for HB 210. She supported
the testimony given by Ms. Hope, MSBSD and Mr. Holland, KPBSD.
She also supported crisis intervention and de-escalation as
proactive and preventative. Although the NSBSD does not employ
Mandt [System, Inc.], the district does use the Crisis
Prevention Institute (CPI) training, although not all staff is
currently trained to use CPI the district is moving in that
direction.
8:55:18 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked for comments on the language the committee
adopted in Conceptual Amendment 1, with respect to debriefing.
MS. WELLS answered that she thought it was appropriate. She
agreed it was important to have staff review their actions for
compliance.
8:56:01 AM
CHAIR GATTIS, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 210.
8:56:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON acknowledged that there may only be two
teachers in a school and the need to have both trained. Of
course, every teacher should have training and this type of
training should be incorporated as part of teacher education in
the University of Alaska system, she said.
CHAIR GATTIS agreed.
8:58:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out the fiscal note indicates
$7,000 per year for approving crisis intervention programs, such
as Mandt Systems, Inc. and CPI. He asked for further
clarification on the number of programs that would be approved
and whether the commissioner envisioned this would be a
continual process.
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), said it is an evolving situation; however, he
anticipated an annual review will occur to evaluate the programs
being implemented and to ensure that the current program is used
and the districts are not using outdated programs.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted the first section of the fiscal note
indicates data collection but not analysis by the EED. He
expressed concern the data will not be used.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that thus far the data has been
collected. He related that this would address a perceived
shortcoming and data will be accessible and available in one
place. The department will know how many incidents occur in the
state and can provide information to the public, without
providing student information.
9:01:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested that the department should
develop a standard form to be submitted to the department. The
EMT does something similar, and she touted the uniformity for
collection of this information. Otherwise schools may submit
information on an independent basis.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY clarified that the department will not
analyze or review the data, but will organize it. The sponsor
has made it clear that analysis is not part of the statute, thus
the low fiscal note.
9:04:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER commented that he is pleased with the
small fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON maintained her concern that organizing
data alone would not satisfy the need and the need for a
standardized form.
CHAIR GATTIS acknowledged that often information is organized
and put in a pile. She suggested that is a bigger question.
9:05:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 2 of the fiscal note.
The last sentence of the narrative on paragraph (1) reads, "The
design of a data collection notebook and technical assistance to
support districts in completing the data collection yearly at
$7.0." He asked whether this should include that the data will
be collected on a form acceptable to the department. Otherwise,
it could become an effort.
9:06:01 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that this addresses data collection
and speaks to Representative Wilson's concern about having a
uniform method for collecting the data.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III added that in his experience the
department collected data on asbestos surveys done on facilities
and organized it. This information was not collated or reported
but was available for districts to review.
9:07:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to clarify the fiscal note with the
bill. He suggested a possible amendment, on page 4, line 9, to
include the language, "on a form acceptable to the department."
MR. GIALOPSOS said that would clarify the department's intent
and the sponsor would be very open to a conceptual amendment to
that effect.
9:08:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, on
page 4, line 9, after "taken" to add the language, "on a form
acceptable to the department."
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion purposes. She
directed attention to page 3, line 29, subsection (d), which
read, "School personnel who restrain or seclude a student shall
provide a written report of the incident to the school
administrator."
CHAIR GATTIS cautioned against constraining the department.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY suggested in page 4, line 19 refers to each
school district reporting to the department and may meet the
intent.
9:10:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew Conceptual Amendment 2. He moved
to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3, on page 4, line 19, following
"report" to insert "on a form acceptable".
CHAIR GATTIS agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER thanked the sponsor for the bill and
suggested that the testimony that has been received in committee
will be well served by the implementation of this type of
policy. He has had personal experience with his son and he
believed that everyone could have benefited from this. He
thanked the sponsor for bringing this forward.
9:12:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 210, Version T, labeled 28-LS0852\T,
Mischel, 2/25/14, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being
no objection, CSHB 210(EDC) was reported from the House
Education Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB0318A.pdf |
HEDC 3/17/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 318 |
| HB 318 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/17/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 318 |
| HB318-Fiscal Note.pdf |
HEDC 3/17/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 318 |
| HB 318 DOD White Paper.pdf |
HEDC 3/17/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 318 |
| HB 318 MCEC Brochure.pdf |
HEDC 3/17/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 318 |
| CSHB210-T Version.pdf |
HEDC 3/17/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 210 |
| CSHB210 T Version-Sectional Summary.pdf |
HEDC 3/17/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 210 |
| CSHB 210 T Version-Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HEDC 3/17/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 210 |
| HB210 - Cowan testimony.pdf |
HEDC 3/17/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 210 |