BILL ANALYSIS |
C.S.S.B. 1553 |
By: Menéndez |
Public Education |
Committee Report (Substituted) |
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
According to interested parties some public school districts discourage parents from participating in meetings held as part of the special education of their children by issuing the parents criminal trespass warnings that often cannot be appealed under district policy. C.S.S.B. 1553 seeks to address this issue by revising the law relating to the refusal of entry to or ejection from school district property and providing for an appeal process.
|
||||||||||||
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.
|
||||||||||||
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that rulemaking authority is expressly granted to the commissioner of education in SECTION 2 of this bill.
|
||||||||||||
ANALYSIS
C.S.S.B. 1553 amends the Education Code to remove the authorization for the board of trustees of a public school district or its authorized representative to refuse to allow a person without legitimate business to enter on property under the board's control and to eject any undesirable person from the property on the person's refusal to leave peaceably on request. The bill instead authorizes a school administrator, school resource officer, or school district peace officer of a district to refuse to allow a person to enter on or to eject a person from property under the district's control if the person refuses to leave peaceably on request and the person poses a substantial risk of harm to any person or the person behaves in a manner that is inappropriate for a school setting and the administrator, resource officer, or peace officer issues a verbal warning to the person that the person's behavior is inappropriate and may result in the person's refusal of entry or ejection and the person persists in that behavior.
C.S.S.B. 1553 requires each school district to maintain a record of each verbal warning issued, including the name of the person to whom the warning was issued and the date of issuance. The bill requires a district, at the time a person is refused entry to or ejected from the district's property, to provide to the person written information explaining the appeal process established by rule of the commissioner of education. The bill requires a district, if a parent or guardian of a child enrolled in the district is refused entry to the district's property, to accommodate the parent or guardian to ensure that the parent or guardian may participate in the child's admission, review, and dismissal committee or in the child's team established under the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, in accordance with federal law. The bill limits the term of a person's refusal of entry to or ejection from a school district's property to no more than two years. The bill requires a school district to post on the district's website and requires each district campus to post on any website of the campus a notice regarding provisions relating to the refusal of entry, ejection, and identification of unauthorized persons on district property, including the appeal process, as amended by the bill. The bill requires the commissioner to adopt rules to implement those provisions, including rules establishing a process for a person to appeal to the district board of trustees a decision to refuse the person's entry to or eject the person from the district's property.
C.S.S.B. 1553 requires the student code of conduct established by the board of trustees of an independent public school district to include an explanation of the bill's provisions regarding refusal of entry to or ejection from district property of certain persons, including the appeal process. The bill's provisions apply beginning with the 2017-2018 school year.
|
||||||||||||
EFFECTIVE DATE
On passage, or, if the bill does not receive the necessary vote, September 1, 2017.
|
||||||||||||
COMPARISON OF SENATE ENGROSSED AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.S.B. 1553 may differ from the engrossed in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following comparison is organized and formatted in a manner that indicates the substantial differences between the engrossed and committee substitute versions of the bill.
|
||||||||||||
|