Meeting Public Comments

Rick Phillips [PELLA PAC]

SF178 is a good and necessary bill at a time when so many are realizing the fallacy of DEI and policies supportive of a lifestyle that has elevated mental illnesses among children. Parents and the community in general need tools to combat the blatant disregard of our state laws. This legislation will also put school boards under a more watchful eye. Protecting children at school from deviant behavior policies doesnt violate anyones civil rights. It protects children, and thats the goal. Please pass SF178.

Monty Montero-Elliott

I oppose SF 178. School boards already have to follow the law and already face consequences if they don't. A recent example of this is Centerville Community School District, which just a few months ago in October was ordered to pay around $113,000 for violating Iowa Open Meeting Laws. So it's not as if school boards are some rogue entity that can't legally brought to heel, and it's not as if county attorneys general need more jurisdiction to do their job and be attorneys. So what are we doing here?If a person in a school district has a concern or complaint about a school board decision, there's already things they can do to address it. They can email the board or superintendent's office directly, they can show up to public meetings, they can meet up and speak with members of the board individually, they can lodge a complaint with the Iowa Office of the Ombudsman, or to the school district's own ombudsman if it has one. They can speak to other concerned district members and form a group about it. The county attorney doesn't have to get involved in any of this. But this bill allows any crank with an agenda to waste the attorney general's time making complaints that could be addressed more effectively in many other ways. This bill gives attorneys general a needless incentive to take up cases against school board members by offering their office a $1000 reward for every defendant involved in a successful civil action. Why do attorneys general need extra financial incentive to do their job? Breaking the law is already against the law. This bill would affect the ability of school boards to come to independent conclusions about what the best move is for their students in their district. A more immediate consequence than lawsuits I believe would be the chilling effect this bill would have on school board members. In the Centerville case it was the school district as a whole that had to pay the $113,000 fine. But in this bill, if an AG's lawsuit is successful, that money would be taken evenly from all named defendants, plus attorney fees. If I'm understanding right that means that each defendant would have to pay personally, at minimum, $1000. That is a lot of money. School board members are elected officials but they don't get compensated, it's a volunteer position. Many if not most of them are adults with full time jobs and families for whom a $1000 plus dollar expense would be a real problem. What's more, school boards make decisions as a group. Per the Iowa Association for School Boards: "As an individual, a board member has no authority. Its only when a majority of the board takes action through a vote that the boards authority is exercised." The individual school board member does not have any power, yet they are the targets of this bill. To single out defendants as individuals like this and exclude those board members who vote quote unquote the right way is an intimidation tactic. It would deter school boards from taking any actions which may not actually be illegal but which members fear may be or might become illegal, or which could draw scrutiny or controversy. The threat of a lawsuit would change the way the board votes and what kind of things they are willing to try or decisions they are willing to make. Perhaps in the end that is the point. But it doesn't serve the people or students in the district if their school board is too scared to try new things. More immediately than a potential lawsuit, this bill would affect how the board responds to situations involving students who are "politically and legally sensitive" at this point in time trans students and immigrant students in particular. I worry that school boards would be disincentivized to take matters involving these students seriously or advocate equally on their behalf because the desire to avoid a lawsuit and potential personal financial burden would take priority over the wellbeing of these students and the quality of their education. Not only does it put the school board members in a difficult position, but it does these students a great disservice. It acts against the mission of a school board, which is to facilitate quality and equal public education for all students. To recap: there is already a system in place to address concerns about school boards, the threat of individual lawsuits would intimidate members of a school board into voting in ways they might not without these pressures, and it would make the quality of a child's education subject to whether a child is politically convenient to advocate for. Please vote no.

Jane Robinette

I oppose SF 178. This bill would punish individual (volunteer) school board members for their individual votes on policies, and superintendents for enforcing those policies. Would individual legislators like to be punished similarly when they vote for laws later found to violate the law or constitution? There are other ways to address school policies that district residents disagree with or that they feel are violating the law. We don't need to make it even harder to find folks willing to serve on their local school boards by subjecting them to personal liability for violating everchanging laws, or to tie up the time of the county attorney with these kinds of actions. Please vote no on SF 178.

Matt Rollinger

I strongly support Senate File 178 and commend its efforts to hold school board members and superintendents accountable for adopting policies that violate state law. As a former school board member, I have witnessed firsthand the blatant disregard for legal requirements when school board members, who are supposed to serve the best interests of all students and the community, made decisions driven by political agendas rather than by the law. This is not only concerning but deeply troubling, as it undermines the trust that taxpayers and parents place in their elected officials.While school board positions are often portrayed as nonpartisan, I observed numerous instances where political ideologies took precedence over the law. Decisions that should have been based on legal principles were instead based on personal beliefs or external political pressures, which ultimately jeopardized the integrity of the districts operations and the education of students.It is important to note that these positions are not voluntary, these are elected positions with real power over public education. However, despite the significant authority they hold, there is virtually no oversight or accountability to ensure that they are acting in accordance with state law or the best interests of the public. Currently, the lack of mechanisms to hold these officials accountable for unlawful actions creates an environment where illegal policies can go unchecked, undermining the rule of law.Senate File 178 provides an important step toward remedying this issue by allowing county attorneys to take action when these policies violate state law. It ensures that board members and superintendents are held accountable for their actions, compelling them to act within the confines of the law. This bill offers a crucial tool to restore trust and integrity to school boards and protect the public interest.I urge all lawmakers to support this bill, as it will help ensure that school boards are truly working for the best interests of the students and communities they serve, not pushing through policies that violate the law for political gain.Thank you.

Jeffrey Anderson

I would strongly oppose this bill. I served 23 years as a school board member, and our policies all indicated when they had been updated, amended, and reviewed. We would routine review the various sets of policies as a section, and the public was provided opportunity to weigh in if they had a concern. The policies include footnotes for state or federal laws that were applicable. Schools boards also receive guidance on their policies from their legal counsel. If a member of the public has a concern with a particular policy or how it is being implemented, they should start by contacting district administration (who implements board policy) to see if their concern can be resolved or questions addresses. If they still have concern they do have the option to ask the board to hear their concerns, review the policy. Going straight to filing a civil action without first trying to resolve a concern would be costly and in most instance entirely unnecessary.