SACRAMENTO, CA – A state Senate bill making its way through California appears as though legislators have an ax to grind with impassioned parents attending school board meetings, as a recently introduced piece of legislation amending Section 44811 of the Education Code would criminalize any adult who presents “substantial disorder” during a school board meeting.
In February of 2023, Democratic Senator Anthony Portantino introduced SB596, which bears the brief description of “School employees: protection” amid its header on the California Legislative Information interface online.
The bill seeks to amend, via expansion of defined criminal conduct, existing California law that currently classifies the threatening/harassment of any school employee or the creation of an unruly display that “materially disrupts classwork or extracurricular activities” at an actual school would be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and fines up to $1,000.
While the above existing law in California seems reasonable and adequate, Sen. Portantino felt as though it just didn’t go far enough.
Not only did the Democratic Senator add in language to include school board meetings and related open-public forums (which can become contentious) where disruptive conduct can be criminalized, but the Senator also toggled the definition of what constitutes harassment of any school employee.
Section 44811(a) would be amended as follows regarding the venues where disruptive conduct can be criminalized:
“(a) Any parent, guardian, or other person whose conduct in a place where a school employee is required to be in the course of the school employee’s duties materially disrupts classwork or extracurricular activities or involves substantial disorder disorder, including substantial disorder at any meeting of the governing board of a school district, the governing body of a charter school, a county board of education, or the state board, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
In short, the above proposed amendment has the potential to criminalize the actions of a parent or guardian who becomes reasonably or understandably irate during a school board meeting.
Meaning if a parent is voicing their respective disdain for practices being carried out at their child’s school during a school board meeting and the board members don’t like what they’re hearing, the school board could very well silence the parent under the threat of jail and imposed fines.
Sections 44811(c)(1) and 44811(c)(2) would amend as follows regarding what constitutes a “course of conduct” equating to harassment/threats, as well as the definition of harassment:
“(1) ‘Course of conduct’ means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of two or more acts occurring over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose, including following or stalking an individual, making harassing telephone calls to an individual, or sending harassing correspondence to an individual by any means, including, but not limited to, the use of public or private mails, interoffice mail, facsimile, or email. purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of ‘course of conduct.’
(2) ‘Harassment’ means unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be that which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person.”
As seen in the above proposed amendments, harassment would no longer be objectively defined as consisting of sustained and very specific acts like “stalking” or “harassing telephone calls,” nor would there have to be any sort of connotation of credible threats intertwined with the acts to be deemed criminal.
Instead, all a parent would have to do to meet this proposed threshold of criminality is do “two or more” things which prosecutors would determine “serves no legitimate purpose” and “seriously alarms” a school board employee.
Needless to say, the language of this California bill is unsettling, and the timing of it seems an awful lot like a response to the nationwide phenomenon of parents speaking out against school board officials during public meetings.
The bill in question is already on the way to becoming a reality, having passed through the Senate Floor this past May and passed the Public Safety Committee in July, moving forward to the Committee on Appropriations.
If passed by the respective committees, all that would be left is a green light from the state’s House, and then proverbial wrongthink uttered aloud during school board meetings could see parents sent to jail.
Gregory Hoyt is a former contributor to outlets such as Law Enforcement Today and Red Voice Media, and current host of The Breakdown with Greg Hoyt. Based out of Sierra Vista, Arizona, Hoyt is a staunch and outspoken advocate of law enforcement and first responders, while also harboring the unique experience of having spent nearly 5 years in prison. Since then, he's used his unique perspective to offer support and commentary about the criminal justice system. When not working or combating bad ideas, Hoyt also leisurely studies economics, history, and law.