Law & Licensing Committee delays action on broad code‑of‑conduct draft after hours of questions

The Utah State Board of Education’s Law & Licensing Committee on Oct. 1 paused action on sweeping changes to the Local Education Agency Code of Conduct, citing unanswered questions about definitions, reporting burdens on local education agencies (LEAs) and privacy protections.

Chair Kerry opened the item by saying the draft implements a legislature directive to create a code of conduct for non‑licensed school employees and explained staff had prepared a second draft after public concern about the initial text. "This is designed to protect students," Kerry said, while acknowledging the rule raises complex tradeoffs between safety, local control and administrative burden.

Public commenters framed the stakes differently. Braden, a parent and community member who returned to speak after an earlier appearance, told the committee he had found "anti American sentiment" in some schools and said students sometimes lack access to conservative sources in library collections. "Children can't find access to conservative presidents to do reports on," he said, urging consistent treatment of school clubs. Dr. Sarah Jones of the Utah Education Association asked the committee not to take action on R277‑322 at this meeting, urging the board to align any rule changes with a broader UPAC review. Hiram Clark, an attorney for Alpine School District, warned the proposed draft "casts such a wide net" and cautioned that in the districts’ reconfiguration years "that half a million dollars per district will be no small matter," urging broader LEA feedback.

Members and staff spent the bulk of the meeting parsing specific language. Law and professional practices staff and outside counsel answered detailed questions about terms such as "harassment," "intimidation" and what "political and ideological neutrality" would mean in classrooms and on school property. AAG Bill told the committee the phrase, as written, would allow neutral historical instruction but could create ambiguity when partisan symbols appeared in instructional material or on personal property.

Committee members repeatedly expressed concern about the draft's reporting requirements. The draft would require additional reporting for certain terminations tied to sexual‑conduct provisions and aggregate reporting of other code‑of‑conduct incidents. Members raised privacy questions about a proposed list of non‑licensed employees who were terminated or had disciplinary findings and asked whether that information could be kept private and whether LEAs could access it when hiring. Chief Audit Executive Debbie Davis warned that data reliability is a longstanding problem for USBE and that any centralized reporting system would require substantial data‑management work and training before it could be relied on for oversight.

The committee also spent significant time on a related set of rules, R277‑111 and R277‑114, that outline how the board categorizes rules for monitoring and how it responds when LEAs do not comply. Chair Kerry argued the existing category system (levels 1–4) has little empirical basis and can unintentionally signal to LEAs that an item will not be monitored. Staff and members discussed a proposal to create an Oversight and Accountability Subcommittee and a centralized corrective‑action tracker so the board can escalate unresolved compliance concerns without making every case public.

After roughly two hours of discussion and multiple requests for additional stakeholder review from members, the committee voted unanimously to bring R277‑322 and the related R277‑111/114 back to a special Law & Licensing Committee meeting in October and again to the November committee meeting for continued discussion or possible action. Chair Kerry invited members to send stakeholder names and proposed edits so staff can produce a revised draft in advance.

What’s next: The committee set a timetable to reconvene on the items in a special October meeting (backup materials to be filed by Oct. 28) and to continue discussion in November; members asked staff to circulate the second draft and to invite district counsel and other affected stakeholders to comment before the next session.