Fact check: was SRO restraint language added to ed policy bill at session's end, as Baker claims?

Republicans have raised a rumpus about a provision in the omnibus K-12 education bill passed last spring, the Strib's Eder Campuzano reported in Minnesota Republicans demand repeal of ban on student restraints as police pull out of schools.

On Friday afternoon, the online version of the West Central Triune published this letter from state Representative Dave Baker (R-Willmar). In Dave Baker: Call a Special Session to fix Minnesota's SRO problem, he writes:

. . .Throughout the legislative session and in the last several weeks, school officials and law enforcement leaders have been raising concerns about the liability issues created by this change in law because these officers could lose their jobs and careers by using very basic and widely used physical restraints.

To make matters worse, this policy change was not processed through the normal committee process. Instead, it was added in the last weeks of the legislative session when so many things were being changed, and the concerns of professionals in schools and law enforcement were not properly listened to. . . .

Having watched the Republican press conference earlier this week in which one senator talked about raising his concerns in committee in February, Bluestem thought his claim could be fact checked by looking at versions of the education policy bill, which are readily available online.

Let's follow the progress of the Senate and House versions of the bill, which has been publicly available for lawmakers and the public to view since early February.

Introduced on February 2, the  original text of Senate File 1311 included the language:

ARTICLE 5 DISCIPLINE, RESTRICTIVE PROCEDURES, AND REPORTING REFORM, 121A.58 CORPORAL PUNISHMENT; PRONE RESTRAINT; AND CERTAIN PHYSICAL HOLDS. . . .

Subd. 2a. Prone restraint and certain physical holds not allowed.

(a) An employee or agent of a district, including a school resource officer or police officer contracted with a district, shall not use prone restraint.

(b) An employee or agent of a district, including a school resource officer or police officer contracted with a district, shall not inflict any form of physical holding that restricts or impairs a pupil's ability to breathe; restricts or impairs a pupil's ability to communicate distress; places pressure or weight on a pupil's head, throat, neck, chest, lungs, sternum, diaphragm, back, or abdomen; or results in straddling a pupil's torso.

This is the language Senator Zach Duckworth questioned in committee later that month, KARE-11 reported in DFL leaders say they're open to clarifying school resource officer law, as GOP leaders call for special session:

In February, Duckworth raised concerns publicly about the proposed SRO rules during an Education Policy Committee meeting. 

At the time, he told his fellow lawmakers that the language "puts some limitations on what they're able to do to keep folks safe" and suggested the legislature solicit more feedback from school districts and law enforcement agencies.

From the Senate Education Committee's 2023 - 2024 Report of Bills in Committee (With detail):

SF 1311 Cwodzinski; Kunesh; Gustafson; Westlin; Boldon
HF 1269 Pryor
Revisor No.: 23-00122
Short Description: Omnibus Education policy bill

DATE	D-PG	ACTIONS
02/06/2023	677	Introduction and first reading
02/06/2023		Referred to Education Policy
03/13/2023	1488a	Comm report: To pass as amended
03/13/2023	1582	Rule 12.10: report of votes in committee
03/13/2023	1686	Second reading
04/24/2023	5823	Special Order: Amended
04/24/2023	5842	Third reading Passed
		See HF2497

All Senate versions of the bill include the now-controversial language.

And the Minnesota House companion bill? HF1269, introduced on the same day, February 2, included the same language. It was referred to the House Education Policy Committee, which heard the bill on March 7 (informational hearing-minutes), March 9 (minutes) and  March 10 (minutes).

Update Sept. 4: On March 7, Session Daily's Steve Abrams reported in Lawmakers hear House DFL’s proposed policy overhaul of Minnesota K-12 schools:

• school employees and school resource officers could not place a place a student in “prone restraint” or physical holds that restrict breathing; and [end update]

That gave everyone--including Republican members of the committee--about five weeks to read the bill and prepare for discussion and possible amendments. A Republican DE amendment heard March 10 didn't address concerns about this language.

The revised bill (with the language intact restricting prone restrain and physical holds that restrict breathing et al.) then was sent to the House Education Finance Committee. That committee heard the bill on March 21 (minutes) and laid it laid over inclusion in the Education Finance omnibus bill. 

The Republican members of the committee didn't offer any amendments on any language in the bill.

Thus the language was in both chamber's versions the bill at its introduction in early February, rather than being snuck in during the frenzy of session's close.

It's not a conference committee secret agreement thing. Here's the K-12 omnibus education conference committee report. Session Daily reported on May 16, House passes K-12 education bill that features $2.2 billion funding boost, contentious policy changes, but doesn't mention the new language limiting prone restraints et al in its chronicle of controversy.

Baker doesn't serve on either House education committee, so perhaps he wasn't paying attention to education bills or the work in those committees.

Representative Baker is simply wrong about the provision when he writes that it "was added in the last weeks of the legislative session when so many things were being changed" and the West Central Tribune should let its readers know that he is misinformed about the legislative history of the language in last spring's session. 

Bluestem suggest readers check of the column by rather conservative Forum News' Rob Port: Maybe we should ask ourselves why we need cops in schools at all?

Or the observations by in Michelle Griffith's Republicans call for special session to repeal physical restraint ban in schools: at the Minnesota Reformer:

Mendota Heights Police Chief Kelly McCarthy said she believes the many cities will follow the League of Minnesota Cities’ guidance since it’s their insurance provider.

McCarthy, former chair of the Minnesota Peace Officer Training and Standards Board, said she believes panic around the law change is political.

“I think the hysteria is partisan,” McCarthy said.

Whatever the case, Baker's timeline on the controversial language is simply false. The language remained unchanged from its introduction on February 2 and thus went through the committee process in both chambers of the Minnesota legislature.

Photo: Willmar Republican state representative Dave Baker. From his campaign website.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Comments

[Buckmeier4MN]

Solid reporting to set the record straight. Thanks for compiling the documents and putting it out there for all to read.

[Dave Baker]

I appreciate the clarity needed for the SRO fact check. What was unclear at the end of session was if the SRO policy changes were going to be added to the Education Conf Committee which was not seen until May 15th. But here is the biggest reason this policy was not vetted properly is …it NEVER went to the Public Safety or Judicial committees. This major ‘miss’ is why we have this problem today. Only going thru Education committee was a mistake. Any changes to Public Safety must go thru those committees with members that know these statutes better than anyone. It got missed, let’s get it fixed and Walz needs to call us back. Thank you for pointing this out. Dave Baker

Editor's note: Sending the bill to the Public Safety Committee was in the realm of possibilities, but I don't find any evidence of anyone trying to do this. Bluestem can't find anything in the minutes of either House Education Committee (Policy or Finance) that any member moved to have the bill sent to the Public Safety Committee. Nor did anyone move on the floor of the House to have the bill sent to Public Safety Commitee when the report from Education Policy was taken up prior to sending it to Education Finance in mid-March. Four Republican members did offer a minority report to the Education Finance committee but the House laid it on the table. The House minority had enough interest to create a minority report on the bill--but couldn't speak up for sending it to Public Safety in March?

There were opportunities to send it to Public Safety, but I don't see anything in the record showing that House Republicans acted on this.