Utah State Board narrows role of guidance in sensitive-materials rule, mandates parent representation and permits pay for staff time

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah State Board of Education on the final reading of draft 3 of rule R277-628 (sensitive materials) approved several amendments and left other contested provisions unresolved, moving part of the item to a later session for further work.

The board voted to amend draft 3 by striking lines 87–88, a change proposed by Board member Klein and seconded by Board member Carrie; that motion passed 9–4. The board also approved an amendment to line 59 to require review committees to include “at least 1 parent” (passed 12–1). Later the board voted to remove language that had required the superintendent to provide a model policy/guidance document by striking lines 78–80 (substitute motion passed 12–2). The board approved an amendment requiring LEAs to compensate employees who are required to participate in sensitive-materials review committees outside their contract hours (9 yes, 1 abstention, 4 no).

Why it matters: the rule implements portions of HB 29 and is intended to guide local education agencies (LEAs) on handling instructional and library materials contested as sensitive. Board action changes how districts will be told to organize review panels and how staff time may be treated, while removing a centrally produced model policy from the rule language.

Most important actions and votes

- Strike lines 87–88: Board member Klein moved “I would like to strike lines 87 and 88.” Board member Carrie seconded. Klein argued the lines conflicted with other sections (lines 55–56) and with the requirement that LEAs “revisit” past removals to ensure compliance after the law changed. After discussion the motion passed 9–4; the four no votes recorded were Members Lear, Moss, Norton and Strait.

- Require at least one parent on review committees: Board member Carrie moved to change the line to read “3 or more members and at least 1 parent.” The motion was seconded by Board member Boggess and passed 12–1; Member Lear cast the lone no vote.

- Remove model-policy/guidance mandate: After extended discussion about what HB 29 requires and what the board can or should prescribe, Board member Klein’s substitute motion to strike the portion of draft 3 that called for a model policy/guidance (lines 78–80) passed 12–2. The two no votes were Members Green and Boggess. Staff and the deputy superintendent had explained the statute requires the state to provide guidance in consultation with the attorney general, but the board removed the board-rule language that would have required a centrally produced model policy to be incorporated by reference into the rule.

- Compensation for LEA employees serving outside contract hours: Board member Boggess moved to add language that “if an LEA requires an employee of the LEA to participate on a sensitive material review committee, the LEA shall compensate the employee for the employee’s time participating on said committee,” with the amendment later narrowed in committee to apply to participation that requires engagement outside contract hours. That amendment passed 9 yes, 1 abstention (Member Klein), 4 no (Members Norton, Strait, Carrie and Vice Chair Earl).

What failed

- Motion to prevent initial reviewers from serving on review committees: A motion to amend draft 3 to insert the word “not” after “may” on line 60 and to strike lines 62–64 (a move intended to bar individuals who served on an initial review from serving on the review for an appeal) was debated at length and failed (6 yes, 1 abstention, 6 no).

- Proposal on disposition of removed materials: Board member Strait proposed replacing lines 66–69 with a three-option disposal approach (destroy if the material fails the bright-line test; restrict access and require parental permission; or retain on shelves). That motion was seconded but failed (4 yes, 1 abstention, 8 no).

Debate highlights and legal context

Members repeatedly referred to HB 29 and to existing board rules. Deputy Stallings clarified that, under the statute, the state must provide a complaint process to the board and LEAs must have a policy; he said the statute does not itself require the board to adopt a new rule but noted the board chose to provide clarification. As Stallings summarized, “there's only 2 requirements… the complaint process and the LEA requirement to have a policy.” Staff and legal counsel reminded the board that guidance prepared in consultation with the attorney general's office had already been provided and that incorporating a guidance document by reference into a rule would make it mandatory in effect.

Several members expressed concern about narrow or ambiguous phrasing in the rule. Member Carrie asked whether the phrase “illicit sexual material” was defined in HB 29; she said she did not find a statutory definition and worried the adjective “illicit” could create ambiguity for LEAs. Member Boggess and others engaged on whether some sexually explicit material can be constitutionally protected and whether the rule should rely on an obscenity standard; the board did not adopt new definitional language at this meeting.

Next steps

Board members voted to postpone remaining work on the instructional materials compliance checklist and related guidance to the next meeting (postponement motion passed 9–5). Staff was asked to work with the attorney general’s office and return a clarified checklist/guidance for board review; members requested the checklist be tightly tied to statutory language so it is objective and not subject to “creative interpretation.”

Ending

The board moved the bulk of the rule forward with several substantive amendments but left other high‑priority items unresolved; staff and legal counsel will refine the remaining guidance and compliance checklist and return to the board for further action at a later date.