Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parental Involvement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee rejects concurrence on parental-access bill after competing amendments; measure tabled
Summary
Senate Bill 299, a parental-access and identity-instruction measure, faced competing coordination amendments and sharp debate about local control and grievance procedures; the committee voted 5–10 against concurrence and then tabled the bill.
The House Education Committee considered Senate Bill 299, a measure to revise laws on parental involvement and require school boards to adopt policies giving parents full access to information about their child. After a series of roll-call votes on competing coordination amendments, the committee did not concur with the Senate bill and tabled it.
Staff explained the amendments were intended to align SB299 (Title 40 language) with House Bill 471 (Title 20) and to avoid inconsistent definitions across statutes. One staff-recommended coordination change would set a notice period "no fewer than five school days and no more than 14 school days" and ensure a single statutory definition of "identity instruction." Staff also noted the phrase "identity instruction" does not currently appear in the Montana Code Annotated, though existing statute allows excusing a child from "human ********* instruction," which includes gender identity.
The committee held a roll-call on the first amendment (dot 2.1); the clerk recorded individual votes and the amendment failed (the clerk reported the amendment vote as 2 in favor, 13 opposed). A sponsor-requested amendment (dot 2.2) later passed by roll-call; staff said it would strike an unused definition and include coordination language that could make House Bill 471 void should both bills pass.
Representative Thang/Thain raised substantive objections, saying the bill created a "highly prescriptive" complaint process that would usurp local school boards' authority and override existing uniform grievance procedures; he said he would vote no. Ultimately the committee's roll-call on SB299 as once amended resulted in a 5–10 split against concurrence. A motion to table the bill passed by voice vote and the committee tabled SB299.
What happens next: SB299 did not win concurrence in committee and is tabled; the transcript records competing statutory coordination concerns and significant debate about local control and grievance procedures.
