Notes: House Committee Discusses Updates to 2023 SRO Bill

Notes By: Cirien Saadeh, Executive Director and Community Journalist

Rep. Cedrick Frazier introduces the SRO legislation at a Feb. 13 meeting of the House Public Safety Finance and Policy committee meeting. Screenshot by Cirien Saadeh

HF3489 (Frazier) Education (SRO); public safety provided, grounds for use of reasonable force in schools modified, school resource officer duties defined and minimum training requirements established, and money appropriated.  

Committee Called to Order 

  • Rep. Kelly Moller (40A) opens up the committee by setting some ground rules for the discussion
  • Rep. Moller does not provide any opening comments on the SRO legislation, before moving the legislation to Rep. Cedrick Frazier (43A) to introduce the bill. Rep. Moller does move the bill to be laid over for further discussion. 
  • Rep. Frazier begins by describing the A2 amendment which “addresses issues raised by Minnesota cities in terms of some insurance issues…we also added additional consultation groups to the model policy post-board making process, which included Disability Services Council and the National Association of School Resource Officers.”
    • Rep. Moller notes that the amendment also includes training on specific topics identified in the amendment 
    • No discussion on the A2 amendment, amendment adopted 
  • Rep. Frazier introduces the bill, begins by thanking people for engaging in discussions around the bill
    • “House File 3489 addresses an issue that came up this fall with concerns about the clarity of a bill passed in 2023 in regards to prone restraints used in our educational settings. Specifically the confusion or ambiguity was around when force could be used in our educational settings. This bill clarifies, when force can be used, for educators as well as when force can be used for SROs in the educational setting.”
    • “This bill specifically addresses prone restraints and the reason we’re having this conversation is because we had one of the most tragic situations happen in the State of Minnesota when we had the killing of George Floyd by former officer Chauvin. And many folks when they envision a prone restraint, they are envisioning, in fact, that incident, that interaction that took the life of George Floyd when they think about a prone restraint.”
    • “This bill will address when prone restraints can be used, in what manner, and it provides clear guidance on that so there will be no questions moving forward.” 
    • “In this bill, we will also provide a clear statutory construct for transparency and accountability that does not exist today. It will provide for mandatory training for folks who go into our SRO programs, it will provide a process to create a model policy that will be developed with stakeholders. We were intentional about being inclusive of the voices in that process. Because what we heard loud and clear from folks is that they didn’t feel heard and they didn’t feel included in the process that took place over the last legislative session.” 

Non-partisan staff took a bill walkthrough: House Counsel Ben Johnson speaks

  • Sections 1 & 2 “work together. They say that a School Resource Officer is not an employee or agent of a school for the purposes of a statute addressing corporal punishment and certain holds.”
    • Section 4 does similarly
  • Section 3 deletes “the word imminent” when discussing when “teachers and principals can use reasonable force to prevent bodily harm or death to a student or another”
  • Sections 5 & 6 “requires school boards and charter school boards to enter into a contract if they choose to have a school resource officer program.” 
  • Sections 7 & 8 “authorize the use of force in certain situations” – “The changes in the two sections move teachers out of provisions that would apply to parents and guardians and into provisions that would apply to other school officials.” 
  • Section 9 includes a definition of SRO and establishes rules related to SRO training, as well as the development of a model policy. “The Board of Police Officers, Standards, and Training would be required to consult with the named groups, which includes peace officer groups, education groups, and community groups to develop the policy.”
    • The section also includes a requirement that law enforcement agencies “adopt policies that are identical or substantially similar to the model policy.” 
  • Section 10 is an appropriation to the Department of Public Safety “to increase staffing to the Department’s school safety center.” 

Public Testimony: Minnesota Department of Education Commissioner Willie Jett 

  • Begins by thanking people for their input into the bill
  • “While our perspectives on this bill may vary, I appreciate our common focus and commitment to prioritize the health, safety, and wellbeing of our students and our school communities.” 
  • Says that he used to work as a school and district administrator, that administrators were responsible for ensuring school and student safety, “including de-escalating situations.”
  • “However, we occasionally require assistance from our law enforcement partners, specifically school resource officers, if there are significant safety concerns.”
  • “SRO programs, when done well, are rooted in relationships that prioritize the health, safety, and support of young people. This bill ensures that all SROs throughout the state have the training necessary to create these relationships. SROs are viewed as essential to maintaining safe and secure learning environments and the data from the 2022 student survey tells us that an overwhelming majority of students from all demographics value the SROs and their schools.” 
  • “We all recognize that SROs in schools can be a complicated conversation that requires honest and careful consideration and it’s essential that we provide the clarity through this bill to ensure the health and safety of our school communities.” 

Public Testimony: Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson 

  • Provides personal background
    • Finishing up first year as DPS commissioner
    • 33 years in law enforcement, including 17 years as a police chief
    • Worked in Department of Human Services around child welfare issues “making sure to keep kids out of the systems”
    • Supervised and led SROs in Mounds View school district since 1992 until 2016
  • Fully supports Rep. Frazier’s bill
  • “I believe that SROs are valuable members of our school communities, forging positive relationships with students and adults in our school buildings. Based on the results of the 2022 student survey, the vast majority of students think it’s a good idea to have an SRO in the school and will talk to an SRO about something illegal or unsafe. An SRO is yet another responsible adult in a school setting.” 
  • Says the bill being presented is “a comprehensive proposal.”
    • “It creates clear duties for SROs in schools, provides training requirements that are focused on school settings and working with students, and free training options for law enforcement for this training. It also requires a POST Board model policy that will incorporate broad input for Minnesotans, including those working in education, law enforcement, and community groups. This policy will cover a lot of topics but the one that I believe will cover the most important is focusing on building constructive relationships between SROs, students, and educators.” 
    • “This SRO bill also makes it clear that SROs are not allowed to be involved in school discipline. This has been a best practice and included in training for years. Putting this into law makes that very clear. And I will add that if a community so chooses to have a SRO, this bill will help ensure a higher standard and specialized training.” 
    • “A child deserves a learning environment that is safe, supportive, and healthy. I believe that this bill will help accomplish that.” 

Rep. Mueller (23B) asks a clarifying question around when it will be time to ask questions of the testifiers 

  • Rep. Moller: After public testimony. 

Public Testimony

Candace Lewis, Senior at Robbinsdale Cooper High School

  • “Of course a label of authority is not all-defining, especially when it comes to a student deciding why they feel SROs are necessary in schools. That label isn’t anything close to what you can even imagine. It’s not only the relationship they have, but it’s also the qualifications that come with it. It’s conflict resolution, it’s the cultural competency, especially for a school that is as diverse as mine. It comes from a place that it is very nice to have people who understand what it’s like to have differences in the world and when you’re in a place that is just so different sometimes, it’s just nice to have people you can talk to and have those experiences and have a certain input with law enforcement that you usually don’t see.” 
  • Says she feels SROs are “very, very necessary for us in our every day.” 

Darien Muhen, Robbinsdale Cooper High School

  • Part of the RCHS Multicultural Advisory Committee
  • “As a Black teen woman in high school, safety is an important factor in my life. I love to be able to walk into my schools and feel safe and know that there are SROs present, who are watching me to make sure I am safe, constantly throughout the day, until I leave that building.” 
  • Says without SROs, there is “a lack of safetiness and a lack of comfortability walking down into the schools.”
  • Says a lack of relationship with SROs is also meaningful and that students and SROs at RCHS have positive relationships
  • “Having the SROs not there, also interrupts our educational process. Parents aren’t feeling safe sending their students, sending their kids, into our schools knowing that there is no type of security there. We can’t risk our teachers and staff and admin’s life knowing that they are not prepared to handle any unsafe situation. We need to trust that our SROs can do that job.” 
  • Says not having SROs risks the lives of students

Chad Hill, Robbinsdale Cooper High School

  • Part of the RCHS Multicultural Advisory Committee
  • “The whole point of SROs is to break down barriers. I think everyone knows and can agree that police officers in schools should be about breaking down barriers, if that’s race or gender or whatever it may be. It’s about community building, if we have community building with SROs being a part of spirit and being a part of what we do within the school is very important.” 
  • “Who wouldn’t want to know that their kids are safe, knowing that SROs are in the building.” 

Jamvon Rush Reese, Robbinsdale Cooper High School

  • Part of the RCHS Multicultural Advisory Committee
  • Says the public view on law enforcement “is most often negative. This stems from most interactions and news they see and hear from the police being negative also.” 
  • “Law enforcement and police aren’t going to go away, no matter how negatively we view them or dislike them, and we cannot change them, but something we can change is the public perspective that we have on them, especially the perspective kids have and that youth see. Kids my age, in my grade, at my school, see officers as people with a great amount of power, as uniforms, as just a badge, through the MAC group and through our ability to have interactions with the SROs, I have been able to form a more nuanced view and respect for the law.

Matt Shaver, Policy Director, EdAllies (part of the Solutions Not Suspensions Coalition)

  • Opposes the legislation 
  • “Prone kills kids and our advocacy is not about whether we believe SROs belong in schools, it’s about whether the State of Minnesota believes holds that kill children belong in schools.” 
  • Says the Minnesota Student Survey did not ask students their thoughts on “whether the adults in a school building should have the authority to hold them in facedown positions for nonviolent situations. Maybe next year.”
    • Reporter’s Note: this has not yet been fact-checked
  • “We better get things like who, how, and why adults can put their hands on your child, my child, other people’s children, right. Last year’s legislation was a great start in setting a standard for the use of prone in schools and unfortunately in the course of stakeholder engagement, we heard directly from law enforcement leadership that if they are not able to use prone in schools, they will need to use tasers on kids. So it sounds like there is a need for clarity. Let’s clarify the intent of the law by updating the chokehold ban…to explicitly say that SROs may not use prone restraint in schools unless there is imminent threat of bodily harm or death.” 

Patricia Beety, General Counsel, League of Minnesota Cities 

  • The League does not advise member cities to take part in SRO programs, “but we do support the authority for cities and school districts to enter into these agreements if the local community desires it.” 
  • The League had concerns on the previously-passed legislation, raised them on behalf of their members, and appreciate the amended legislation that address the concerns
  • “The amendment does clarify and answer a number of questions that we had and concerns that we had, particularly in respect to any new risks or civil liabilities that potentially could be created by this legislation.” 

Luka Jacobi-Khron, Minnesota Youth Council

  • Supports the legislation because of his personal experience
  • Says he’s always had a positive interaction with SROs who have served in mentorship roles for students
  • “I think this committee should pass this bill because it takes the necessary steps in clarifying some issues that happened last session, especially with the prone restraint, and this bill clarifies that it will allow SROs to return to schools and feel assured that they can fully complete their jobs and keep students safe.” 

Mark Bruley, Chief, Brooklyn Park Police Dept., Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association 

  •  “We appreciate the work that has been done to clarify the law for school resource officers.”
  • Says the Minnesota Police Chiefs Association, Minnesota Sherriff’s Association, and the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association had submitted a letter prior to the hearing noting concerns and that they appreciated Rep. Frazier’s amendments to the bill offered in committee “which addresses some of the concerns included in last week’s letter, however two issues remain.” 
  • Request 1: “We request that the term shall be changed to may…we agree with the description of the duties laid out in the bill but feel including the word shall takes away from the SROs ability to use their discretion.” 
  • Request 2: “We also request that the deadline for SRO training…be changed from June 1 to Dec. 1 of 2025 to give SROs and agencies an additional six months to complete the training.” 

Marci Exsted, MSW, LGSW, Research Assistant, Minnesota Justice Research Center

  • MJRC submitted a memo and they have conducted research on SROs and BIPOC youth in Minnesota
  • “Nationally SROs lack clearly defined roles and have no guidance or legally enforced oversight that’s regulated at the national level. Minnesota can really lead the way by cementing best practices and duty of care standards for SROs because so many school districts have decided the benefits of SROs outweigh the drawbacks, it’s important that the state set clear guidelines for SRO roles and duties.” 
  • “Establishing standards would allow this model and really it should be reflected in the bill that this continues with community engagement and the POST Board really needs to set parameters for SROs with input from vital stakeholders, especially parents, students, educators, and law enforcement.”
  • “Schools should avoid meshing students in the criminal legal system for common youth behaviors. Kids should be allowed to make mistakes and any encounters with the criminal legal system have been shown to create negative educational and social-emotional outcomes for youth.”
  • Says schools should address issues holistically and youth law enforcement as a last resort

Imran Ali, General Counsel, Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association 

  • “The current law is contrary to state and federal law and it creates two standards when in very, very rare circumstances, force either would or should be applied.” 
  • “Force has always been the last option. For the new law, as drafted, it returns that legal standard that officers and our state have been trained on, in a time when policies and procedures and law matter the most to law enforcement, we must not act out of passion or ideologies. Rather our decision should be apolitical and rooted in common sense with a proper application of the law.”
  • Says that SROs out of schools “want back in but are frightened under the current law and those that are in are also worried about what the future is with the law in flux.” 

Maren Christenson Hofer, Executive Director, Multicultural Autism Action Network

  • Parent of a child with a disability
  • “I am here tonight for one reason and one reason only and that is because 79 children have died from restraint-related fatalities. 38 of those were specifically from prone restraint. This is not a safe procedure. The way the law is written right now, what is being proposed, is it makes an exception for law enforcement and security. We do not believe that any child, under any circumstances, should be subjected to 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, abdomen, or results in straddling a pupil’s torso. There should be no exception to that for law enforcement.”
  • “Consider the needs of our children. You have a very difficult decision to make. Prioritizing the wants of law enforcement over the needs of our kids, and I would ask you to just be very thoughtful about that decision.” 

Sean Deringer, Wright County Sheriff, Minnesota Sheriff’s Association 

  • Begins by discussing the statistics of calls from schools that the Wright County Sheriff’s office has had to respond to and notes that student mental health is a “contributing factor in many of these situations.” 
  • “Last year, after learning of the passage of this legislation, I felt that law enforcement and specifically our SROs were put in a very difficult position.”
  • Says there were 3 use-of-force incidents in a previous school year “that may have been questionable given the parameters of the new law. Based on that data, several meetings with my county attorney, school administrators, and other stakeholders, I made the difficult decision to keep our SROs in place. I believe that the vast majority of their time is spent building and fostering relationships and being a positive role model within the school setting.” 

Tressa Dykstra, Pediatric Nurse Practitioner, Developmental Pediatrics

  • Says that folks cannot always see disorders or disabilities that people may have
  • “We cannot afford to make a mistake when it could result in injury or death to a child.” 
  • “Death from prone restraint occurs due to cardiac arrest. In other words, compromised breathing and circulation can stop the heart. Pressure in the neck and chest decreases cardiac output and ventilation until a body can no longer compensate.”
  • “Children with developmental disabilities are at increased risk of cardiac arrest because of their inability to communicate problems and low muscle tone.” 
  • “Another issue is that many children have already experienced violent trauma in the hands of adults who are supposed to keep them safe. Traumatized children need our safety and protection when they are in distress.” 

Kay Kessel, Retired Asst Principal, Minneapolis Public Schools 

  • “Was at Roosevelt High School for two years when the gangs came into Minneapolis”
  • “At each high school I developed ways with troubled students to prevent the prison pipeline. We had liaison officers in each school and many off-duty officers were paid to be at all of our events.” 
  • Says that administrators were in charge of security. “No principal would allow the liaison officer to step into a situation unless we asked them too. We very rarely had to have somebody step in.” 
  • Says a student support group made up of faculty, staff, and administrators was formed at each school and met regularly “to intervene on our students at risk.”
    • “We met and intervened so our students, mainly our kids of color, would not get into the prison pipeline.”

Khulia Pringle, Minnesota State Director, National Parents Union, Member of the Solutions Not Suspensions Coalition, Former Educator

  • “I am here today because the struggle to keep Black bodies safe is a never-ending duty and a reality.”
  • Says the SRO exception for prone restraints is “sad, frightening, disappointing.” 
  • “Our elected officials passed ground-breaking legislation last year on all aspects of life. We all gathered and celebrated at the Capitol when the governor signed the omnibus bill. We never thought we would be down this road when the powers that be want the community to understand that somehow school resource officers cannot do their job without being able to use tactics that restrict the airway of children. Well, if we can help it, not on our watch.”

Tiffini Flynn Forslund, KIPP North Star, Middle School Science Teacher 

  • Says she feels lucky her kids are not darker-skinned, “I didn’t have much to worry about with them, but now I work with at-risk children, BIPOC children, almost 100%. Those kids I worry about. I know what I went through due to my melanin and my skin and a lot of things were not pretty and, when you’re dealing with racism as we do in Minnesota, it is a tough place to be when you’re a person of color.” 
  • “I am against the bill. I don’t think any child should have to witness that or experience that trauma.” 

Hannah Lichstinn, MD, Minnesota Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics 

  • “Prone restraints are harmful to children both physically and emotionally. It is my medical opinion that use of a facedown, forcible, prone restraint does limit the ability of a child to breathe.” 
  • “We therefore ask that this committee vote to maintain existing language that restricts prone restraint use by all adults including law enforcement officers in Minnesota schools.” 

Malaika Eban, Executive Director, Legal Rights Center 

  • Urges legislators to listen to testifiers focusing on the issue of prone restraints
  • “[Prone restraints are] what community are concerned about, that is what young people are talking about when they want to have conversations about the safety of their building.” 
  • “The legislation last year said that we want no adults to be able to do that to our kids, that is all we are asking for today.” 

Jessica Webster, Staff Attorney, Legal Aid, also representing the Disability Law Center 

  • Says they are strongly opposed to the proposed legislation
  • “The spirit and intent of last year’s legislation was to ban prone restraint and breath-impacted holds on children in our schools.” 
  • Says Legal Aid and DLC have represented children hurt through prone holds and physical restraints
  • “We advocated for the ban that passed in 2015 for children with disabilities.” 
  • Says that Legal Aid does support clarification, but not a removal of the ban on prone restraints 

Susan Montgomery, Parent, Minneapolis Resident

  • “My son was abused terribly while going to public school here. I truly believe his trials and tribulations today are because of what happened to him when he was younger. For years when he was receiving special education services as a young Black male, he was put in restraints like air-restrictive holds and other horrible, tortious acts.” 
  • “Having an SRO will not help the situation either, especially if they are biased. It’s important to note that kids like mine were labeled inappropriately, often triggered by watching other kids being restrained or given similar harsh discipline for responding to a sensory issue that may have resulted in a meltdown which doesn’t mean they deserve restraints since it may have been part of their disability.”


DE3 Amendment (Rep. Jeff Witte (57B)

  • Says the amendment “significantly improves the underlying bill by incorporating recommendations from law enforcement and cities. The amendment maintains excluding SROs from the definition of an employee or agent of a school district; maintains limits on school employee’s use of prone restraints; maintains removing imminent a teacher’s ability to use reasonable force to prevent bodily harm or death; reinstates the ability of school employees to use reasonable force to prevent damage to property, a request that came from educators and school administrators; maintains excluding SROs from the changes to authorized use of force in schools; maintains the definition of a school resource officer; replaces the word shall with the word may to describe the contractual duties of an SRO with a school district or charter school, a request made by law enforcement associations and cities; maintains language prohibiting SROS from using force or authority to enforce school rules or policies; maintains SRO training requirements but allows training by the Minnesota School Safety Center or national SRO training without requiring additional training the POST Board is required to develop in the underlying bill. It replaces the POST Board with the Department of Public Safety – Safety Center as the primary driver of developing the SRO training courses. The School Safety Center must still consult with the POST Board. It authorizes DPS School Safety Center to approve supplemental training courses and it deletes the un-necessary and troublesome model policy mandate that law enforcement does not want. It deletes the requirement that every law enforcement agency with an SRO must adopt a model policy and it deletes licensing sanctions and injunctive relief on law enforcement agencies that do not adopt the model policy. It adds a $250,000 appropriation in fiscal year 2025 for SRO training reimbursement to local law enforcement agencies. This DE3 will be a simple fix that will bring clarity and peace of mind and remove the politics and it will return our SROs to schools and it will make our schools a safer place for students, teachers, and staff.” 
  • Rep. Frazier responds to the amendment: 
    • “You described it as a small, easy fix, your amendment, but it really has some great substantive changes to the bill as presented. Mainly it takes away the process to have in the stakeholder voices, what we heard from most folks is that they want to be a part of this conversation to decide how we can curate a comprehensive system in our schools for safety, for everyone in the schools.”
    • “It also stops us from creating a uniform system that can be implemented across the state, which provides transparency, consistency, and also accountability.” 
  • Rep. Paul Novotny (30B) responds to the amendment: 
    • “I do believe [the amendment] solves our problems and it gives us a pathway to having a legislative fix that we can all agree on and come to something that really makes sense.” 
  • Final Comments from Rep. Witte
    • “Removing the model policy does not mean it cannot be revisited at another time. This is the fix to get the SROs back in the schools now.” 
  • Roll Call
    • 6 ayes, 9 nays

Committee Questions & Discussions

Rep. Mueller – question to Commissioner Jacobson 

  • Asks if Chair Jacobson would support the (failed) DE3 amendment 
  • Commissioner Jacobson says “no” 

Rep. Engen (36A) – question to Commissioner Jacobson 

  • “Can you explain why you don’t support the DE3 amendment?”
  • Commissioner Jacobson responds that the goal is to get SROs back into school, to have students safe, and “the path to get there will make most stakeholders, if not all, a little bit unhappy and so my goal is to get SROs back into schools, allow police officers to use their training and their discretion and their ability to use force as they see fit in a setting…I believe this bill allows for that, that was my biggest concern.” 

Rep. Dave Pinto (64B) – question to nonpartisan staff

  • “What is the status under current law is of the use of prone restraints by SROs?”
  • Legal counsel Ben Johnson responds: 
    • Says there are two sections in the education law and a section in the criminal law that “interact” and “overlap”
      • One section of education law says that certain holds, including prone restraints, cannot be used by teachers or other school officials, including SROs (noted specifically)
      • A second section of education law provided exceptions for the use of holds
        • “In situations where it is necessary to use force, to restrain a student to prevent bodily harm or death to the student or another, reasonable force may be used.” 
      • The Attorney General released guidance on this that comes down to, “The only limit on use of force is the standard of reasonableness. There are no specific holds that are prohibited.” 
      • The section of criminal law notes circumstances when peace officers “are permitted to use force and it is not a crime.” The section includes a limit on chokeholds. 
  • Rep. Pinto summarizes Johnson’s comments, “Under current law, if no bill goes forward, no change at all, they would still be able to use prone restraint when there is a situation to prevent bodily harm.”
    • Legal Counsel Johnson: “In cases where there is bodily harm, under the Attorney General’s interpretation, than yes there is an authorization to use prone restraints and those other restrictive holds to prevent bodily harm or death.” 
  • Rep. Pinto responds
    • “I want to make sure it’s not misread that this bill would somehow repeal a current law relating to this because, in fact, prone restraints are not prohibited, despite the language here under the law.” 
  • Rep. Athena Hollins (66B) – questions to Rep. Frazier “It is my understanding that there is no uniformity across the state with how the law that we passed in 2023 would be interpreted?”
    • Rep. Frazier: yes
  • Rep. Hollins to Rep. Frazier: “What guarantee is there that we know what and how children will be treated in [districts where there are SROs]?”
    • Rep. Frazier: Says there is no guarantee currently and there is a need for a model policy
  • Rep. Walter Hudson (30A) to Rep. Frazier: ‘We find ourselves in a really unusual dynamic here tonight, where there are a lot of people who came to testify and submitted letters of testimony who are on my side of this bill, they opposed the bill, they oppose it for very different reasons and it seems as though they are upset about what they perceive this bill to accomplish. And what I noted…the degree to which you…agree with a lot of points that you are making.”
    • “What this bill does is that it takes the language out of statute that provides two different standards for use of force for law enforcement, takes it out of the hands of this body and the legislature and puts it in the purview of the POST Board who gets to make What Rep. Frazier just referred to it as ‘model policy’ which is enforced.” 
    • Says people will get their say, not in the public forum at the legislature, but through influencing “activist friends at the POST Board’ “and they’ll get to make up any rule they want and impose it under force of potentially losing licenses, so you should applaud Rep. Frazier for accomplishing exactly what you want through means that don’t involve the consent of the governed.” 
  • Rep. Novotny to Rep. Frazier: “The problem we have on this side of the aisle is we live in realville.”
    • Calls out activists present who represent issues related to suspensions, school to prison pipelines. 
    • Says that lawmakers don’t know what it’s like to have a fight with someone playing by different rules, “with someone who doesn’t have to answer to a POST Board.” 
    • Says the legislature should deal with the fix (not a POST Board, as per Rep. Hudson’s comments)
  • Final comments by Rep. Frazier: “This is a legislative action and it is one that will include voices that we don’t typically hear from.”
    • “We continue to have these conversations, but we’re not talking to each other and we’re not hearing each other. This bill will create that process for us to do that.” 

Bill is laid over for further discussion. 

Attend an Event