The Utah State Board of Education Law & Licensing Committee on Tuesday delayed final action on proposed amendments to R277‑322, the proposed local education agency code of conduct for non‑licensed staff and contractors, after more than an hour of detailed questions about definitions, reporting burdens and privacy.

Chair Tara Carey, chair of the committee, said the item was brought to the committee at her request to define expectations for the many adults students encounter who do not hold educator licenses. "We really tried to divide up the reporting into two areas," Carey said, explaining the draft separates aggregate reporting from reporting tied to termination-level conduct. "What we want to do is make sure this isn't happening in our schools, and we want to know the extent."

Why it matters: The draft would establish standards for non‑licensed employees and contractors in public schools, require training and create new reporting obligations for local education agencies (LEAs). Committee members, district attorneys’ representatives and school attorneys told the committee they support protections for students but questioned the rule's breadth, the definitions used and the administrative burden on districts.

What committee members and witnesses said

Dr. Sarah Jones of the Utah Education Association asked the committee to pause action and use the ongoing, broader UPAK review process (a multi‑month review the committee authorized earlier) to align any rule changes with that work. "We ask that the committee not take action on the rule today, but rather use that in a much more deliberative process," Dr. Jones said.

Hiram Clark, an attorney for Alpine School District, warned that the draft casts "such a wide net that compliance will become difficult, maybe even to the point of approaching impossibility." Clark said the draft blurred lines between employees' professional and personal lives and flagged a potential fiscal impact, saying districts could face significant costs—"half a million dollars per district"—to implement some measures in early years.

Heidi Alder, general counsel for Weaver School District, said principals currently have statutory discretion over which groups get access to school forums such as yearbooks and bulletin boards and urged clarity and consistency in the rule text. "Under the law, principals do have the discretion as to decide what access groups have," she told the committee.

Committee concerns and clarifications requested

- Definitions: Several members said terms in draft 2 (which the committee reviewed) lack precise legal definition, citing "harassment," "intimidation" and "discriminatory conduct" as examples that need statutory or regulatory clarity.

- Political neutrality: Members pressed for clearer limits on the phrase "shall maintain political and ideological neutrality," asking how classroom instruction, teaching history and personal expression on school property (for example, jewelry or bumper stickers) would be treated. Legal counsel indicated some language was tightened to focus on the classroom and job duties, but committee members asked for explicit examples.

- Reporting requirements and privacy: The draft differentiates between aggregate reporting (no names or identifiers) and reporting for cases leading to termination, resignation in lieu of termination, or other serious dispositions. Committee members and staff debated whether the state should collect names and identifiers for termination‑level cases, how those records would be protected from public records requests, and whether LEAs must be able to query that repository during hiring. Chief Audit Executive Debbie Davis and Director Ben Rasmussen discussed data reliability and the burden of collection; Davis said prior reporting deadlines had a roughly 53% compliance rate in one area and cautioned that data management would be essential.

- Burden on LEAs and training: Multiple committee members said the rule could create unfunded administrative work for districts—tracking part‑time and transient workers—and urged clearer limits and stronger emphasis on training and existing state‑provided training tools rather than new unfunded mandates.

- Contractors and charter schools: Members asked the committee to clarify how the rule applies to contractors (for example, custodians) and charter schools; draft language would require contractors to act consistently with an employer's code of conduct while at work, but some members said the wording should be simplified.

Committee action and next steps

After extended discussion, the committee voted unanimously to bring R277‑322 back to the Law & Licensing Committee in November for continued discussion or possible action. The motion, passed without recorded dissent, leaves the draft open for further edits and stakeholder meetings.

Chair Carey said she will consult stakeholders, including district attorneys and charter school representatives, and encouraged committee members to send suggested revisions. Several committee members asked staff to prepare analyses on data privacy (GRAMA), fiscal impact and training requirements before the next meeting.

What remains unresolved: The committee did not adopt final text. Open items include legally precise definitions for harassment/intimidation/discrimination, whether and when named reporting must be submitted to the state, whether an LEA may query state records about prospective hires, the rule's application to contractors and charter schools, and the scale of any fiscal impact.

Ending note: Committee members and invited witnesses largely agreed on the need to protect students; the disagreement centered on how to write a workable rule that avoids creating unmanageable reporting burdens or unintended consequences for LEAs.