Senate Committee of the Whole hears testimony on bill to let parents attend school meetings without penalty

Senate substitute Bill 37, a bill to guarantee employees time off to attend parent‑teacher conferences and school crisis meetings, drew a lengthy floor presentation and a Committee of the Whole on Jan. 24, 1992.

Sponsor Senator Shepherd said the measure is "a very modest attempt" to respond to demographic changes in which many parents work and are unavailable to participate in school matters. Shepherd noted support from the Utah PTA, the Utah Education Association (UEA) and several large employers and urged senators to consider testimony demonstrating how parental involvement supports student outcomes.

Testimony in favor included Lowell Blom, executive director of the Utah Education Association, who told senators the bill would help "reinstate the family in the lives of young people" and aid classroom and counselor work when parents can participate. Joyce Muhlestein, president of the Utah PTA, said PTA members reported parents sometimes fear asking employers for time off and cited surveys linking parental involvement to improved student performance.

Opposition testimony came from Larry Bunkel, speaking for the Utah Manufacturers Association, who argued the bill would mandate practices many employers already provide and raised specific concerns about draft language. Bunkel noted the substitute exempts union companies, questioned the undefined term "full‑time employee," and warned that requiring a written leave policy could expose small employers to discrimination suits.

Sponsor Shepherd and supporters said the bill is not intended to force parents to attend but to protect the right of parents — including part‑time workers — to respond to school crises without risking their jobs. Shepherd emphasized that the bill’s penalty provisions apply only if an employee is fired or demoted for taking the leave.

Senators debated technical points including whether the bill in its current form creates unnecessary litigation risk and whether the statutory language should exclude or modify the written‑policy requirement. After extended discussion and public testimony, the Senate agreed to hold the bill as unfinished business for further consideration the next day and to provide additional amendments and technical fixes.

The Committee of the Whole produced on‑the‑record testimony from both education advocates and employer representatives; the sponsor pledged to seek compromise language to address the employer concerns and clarify enforcement and definitions.

What’s next: The Senate left SB 37 as unfinished business and scheduled it for reconsideration the following day, allowing time for technical revisions and possible amendment language to address industry concerns.