Utah House narrows school-restraint bill after hours of debate; amendment passes 36–35

The Utah House spent several hours on Feb. 6 debating Senate Bill 32, a proposal to restrict the use of physical force and clarify rules for restraint in public (and, as written, private) schools.

Sponsor Representative Franson, speaking to colleagues, said the bill "restricts the use of force upon students in public and private schools, day care centers, and other organizations which are in the business of supervising or educating children," and said it would align district policies and legal requirements with state law. He told members the bill "does provide for the use of reasonable restraint if the restraint is justified." (Representative Franson).

The debate turned on several fault lines: whether the bill’s language would unduly limit clinical procedures used with some severely handicapped students (described in testimony as "aversive therapy"); how individual education plans (IEPs) would interact with the bill’s rules; and whether private and church-affiliated schools should be subject to the same statutory restrictions as public schools.

Representative Bradford asked for a definition of "aversive therapy" and whether the amendment would impede proven clinical treatments for certain handicapped, self-destructive children. Representative Franson and others said the amendment before the chamber was the result of negotiations among stakeholders and was intended to preserve appropriate clinical options while removing the controversy from the Senate amendment.

Privacy and parental-rights questions were repeatedly raised. Representative Fox argued against excluding private or church-affiliated schools from the bill, saying, "Just because a parent makes a choice to send a child to a private school that is church affiliated, does that give them the authority to say go ahead and pound them if they need it?" (Representative Fox). Opponents of a private-school carve-out emphasized statewide protection for all children.

A substitute amendment offered by Representative Franson and modified on the floor—deleting additional clause language after a reference to "local rules" so the statute would not require both local rules and a separate human-rights committee—was adopted after a roll-call division, 36–35. The motion to amend "the Goldenrod" (the floor amendment sheet) carried and the bill was amended accordingly.

By the noon adjournment the underlying bill remained before the House; members voted on the amendment but did not complete final passage of SB 32 that day. The House took no final vote on the full bill before recessing until 10 a.m. the next day.

What’s next: SB 32 returns to the floor when the House reconvenes; members will resume considering the amended text and any additional substitute motions.

Sources: Floor debate and amendment votes recorded on the House journal proceedings, Feb. 6, 1991.