Committee approves bill letting schools use certain door‑securement devices; fire marshal ordered to publish approved list

House Bill 31, which would require school districts to adopt safety and security policies and allow certain door‑securement devices under locally adopted plans, passed the House Education and Miscellaneous Topic Committee on Jan. 27, 2025.

Representative Pendergraft, the bill sponsor, told the committee the measure is “primarily about common sense and local control” and described the bill as a response to schools developing their own ways to secure classroom doors during active‑shooter drills. He said some schools have used ad hoc methods such as draping a fire hose over door closing arms and that districts need clear authority to use purpose‑made devices. “One of the thing that I think is important to have in this bill is a requirement for school districts to adopt some security policies,” Pendergraft said.

The Department of Education supported the bill. Wanda Maloney, speaking for Superintendent Megan Degenfelder, said the department already collects safety plans through its accreditation process under chapter 6 rules and that the superintendent “is in support of House Bill 31 and has made school safety a priority.” Maloney told the committee that the details of safety plans are treated as confidential and are not publicly released.

Opponents, led by voices from the fire service and building regulators, urged caution. Eric Quiney, president of the Wyoming Fire Chiefs Association, said the bill as originally written would have the effect of telling the State Fire Marshal to “stand down” and risked undermining fire code protections. “The fire code has been written and most times in blood because of incidents that have happened over the years,” Quiney said, arguing that some devices in use could prevent safe egress for children or first responders.

Other government safety officials and local building regulators expanded on that concern. Anthony Palmer, building official for the City of Cheyenne, noted many older school buildings lack modern fire suppression systems and urged the committee to account for those facilities. Lanny Applegate of the Wyoming Fire Chiefs pointed out an existing governor‑appointed board that can work with schools and fire officials on code and device evaluation.

Representatives of school safety and law enforcement told a different story. Officer Boot Hill, a school resource officer with the Sheridan County Sheriff’s Office, said Sheridan County uses manufactured devices that are installed during drills and removed within seconds if evacuation becomes necessary. “The locking devices that we've been using … are premanufactured. They are very quick to install and very quick to uninstall in case the situation evolves where we can evacuate that area,” Boot Hill said, adding that training is part of the regimen.

Committee debate focused on balancing the security needs identified by some school districts and SROs with enforcement of fire and egress standards. After public testimony the committee adopted a conceptual amendment proposed by Vice Chair Lahey that removed language instructing the fire marshal not to prohibit devices and instead required the State Fire Marshal to produce a list of approved door‑securement devices in consultation with stakeholders. Committee members discussed timelines; the amendment that passed set a three‑month target for the fire marshal to publish the list and allowed for interim, cooperative solutions between schools and the fire marshal’s office.

Following amendment votes, the committee took a final vote on the bill. The committee moved and seconded the bill out of committee; members voted to advance House Bill 31 with the adopted amendment. The sponsor and supporters said the change was intended to encourage cooperation between school districts and the State Fire Marshal rather than an exclusion of fire code oversight.

Key unresolved details left for later work include a statewide list of approved devices (to be produced by the State Fire Marshal within the committee’s adopted timeline), any cost implications for districts that already have devices, and how the published list will be integrated into local safety plans. The Department of Education and several law‑enforcement witnesses reiterated willingness to work with the State Fire Marshal and local districts on implementation.