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.