Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Employee Conduct topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debates bill to bar school employees from encouraging illegal conduct, critics warn of overbreadth
Summary
Senate Bill 246, sponsored by Sen. Craig Taylor, would restrict school employees and volunteers from encouraging or supporting illegal conduct when it materially disrupts schools; backers cite court precedent while opponents say the language is vague and could chill teachers and target student groups. The bill generated lengthy floor debate and failed to be narrowed by several proposed amendments during Feb. 22 proceedings.
Senate Bill 246, introduced by Sen. Craig Taylor, drew prolonged debate Feb. 22 as senators weighed whether state law should explicitly bar school employees and volunteers from encouraging, condoning or supporting illegal conduct when that conduct would materially disrupt school activities or undermine students' welfare.
Taylor told colleagues the measure draws on federal precedent and the Tenth Circuit’s reading of Supreme Court standards to limit any restriction on employee speech to instances that produce "a material or substantial interference or disruption in the normal activities of the school." He said the bill is intended to provide administrators and teachers with a clear standard rather than create novel punishments: "We're not doing anything that can't already be done except we're pulling it together to provide some definiteness," Taylor said.
Opponents warned the language is broad and could be applied beyond on‑campus conduct to teachers’ private lives. "This bill is aimed at intimidating public school teachers from freely advising students," Sen. Steiner said, arguing the statute as drafted is vague about terms such as "private capacity" and "undermine the health, safety, welfare, or morals of school children." Others raised hypotheticals—smoking, divorce, off‑duty protest activity—that they said showed the potential for unintended consequences if the statute swept too broadly.
Supporters and the bill’s sponsors said the statute contains strict evidentiary elements: the employee must have known or reasonably should have known an action would undermine student welfare or public confidence and the action must in fact cause a material/substantial disruption. Taylor and backers also noted support from several education organizations: the bill’s text and legislative record reference input from the State Board of Education, the State School Boards Association, local superintendents' groups and the PTA.
Amendments were proposed on the floor. Sen. Steiner offered language urging schools to "promote tolerance and understanding," which Taylor said he could partially accept (the tolerance language) but could not accept if it created a protected classification in statute. Other senators moved to delete the portion applying the limitation to certain private conduct; that motion failed on a voice/division vote.
Floor exchanges repeatedly returned to whether existing local school board policies and discipline standards already provide remedies, and whether a state standard was necessary. Senators cited prior incidents involving on‑campus misconduct as arguments for clarification and cited constitutional concerns (free speech and due process) as reasons to narrow or delete parts of the bill.
No final floor vote on final passage of SB 246 is recorded in the Feb. 22 transcript; the discussion continued through the close of the day's floor business. Instead, senators debated amendments and requested clarifications of statutory standards and evidentiary burdens. The bill remained under active consideration at the end of the session excerpted in the transcript.
Votes at a glance (items decided during the Feb. 22 floor session):
• Substitute Senate Bill 120 (Adoption Assistance) — passed final procedural action on the floor; roll call reported "28 aye votes with 1 being absent." (Senate calendar action recorded in floor transcript.)
• First substitute SJR 17 (Resolution amending revenue/taxation and education articles to define the public school system to include higher education) — passed, roll call reported "26 aye votes, 3 nay votes."
• Senate Bill 113 (Pay‑for‑performance education model) — floor action proceeded through roll‑call steps; the transcript records a roll call with 17 aye and 12 nay in one recorded procedural step and the bill was placed on the third‑reading calendar.
What happens next
The transcript shows further committee or floor work necessary: SB 246 was still being amended and debated at the end of the excerpt. The record shows sponsors and opponents asking for refinements (definitions of "private capacity," limits on scope, and clearer evidentiary standards) before any final passage was recorded in this session.
Sources: floor proceedings, Utah State Senate, Feb. 22, 1996; direct quotes from Sen. Craig Taylor and Sen. Steiner as recorded in the transcript.
