listen to this articleOKLAHOMA CITY – The Senate Administrative Rules Committee directed questions to representatives of the Oklahoma State Department of Education Monday morning, but several members appeared dissatisfied with the answers they were given.
The committee discussed 27 rules at the meeting, but 20 rules related to the state Department of Education dominated the conversation. There were no votes on the rules, and discussion was limited to one question and follow-up from him on each item.
Regulations may be approved or rejected by Congress. A House committee is also expected to meet and vote on the rules before the joint resolution is passed by both chambers. If the Legislature does not act, the governor can approve or veto the rules.
Many questions were raised, but multiple Senate committee members felt on Monday that their questions were left unanswered.
State Sen. Michael Brooks (D-Oklahoma City) voiced opposition to most of the agency's proposed rules. First, he pointed to the attorney general's April 4 opinion, which said there are limits to how current school boards can promulgate rules and that there is no explicit authority to do so. He said the first rule discussed dealt with declarations of fundamental values and could violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
OSDE government spokeswoman Lindsay McSparlin said the Core Values are intended to be a guide to interpreting other regulations. As for the agency's authority, McSparlin said the attorney general's opinion cites § 104(A)(1), which provides additional authority for all regulations. Regarding regulations on values and other rules discussed on Monday, she said it would be permissible to amend previously passed regulations.
McSparlin said she would need to consult with the department to get a clear answer to one of Brooks' questions about Oklahoma's school testing program.
Brooks said the proposed rule would change relief opportunities for students and result in additional requirements for school districts, but there is still no additional funding or other mechanism to accomplish the obligation. Said it doesn't exist. He asked if that was correct, and Ms McSparlin said she would be able to answer once she was briefed.
State Sen. Michael Bergstrom (R-Adair) asked McSparlin if he would be prepared to produce a document that would address the issues raised in Monday's discussion and could be distributed to the committee. Mr. McSparlin intends to do so, he said.
OSDE's interim general counsel did not attend the meeting.
During a discussion on Equal Protection Rule 210:25-1-2, state Sen. Mary Bolen (D-Norman) said she had questions but that OSDE representatives were “not qualified to answer.”
Brooks and McSparlin appear to disagree on the correct interpretation of the attorney general's opinion. Brooks said the department cannot make regulations without changing state law. Mr McSparlin said the 83 rules under the previous government were not explicitly set out in the legislation.
One of the final rules, 210:35-3-251, deals with prayer in schools. Boren said the rule requires all public school districts to adopt policies that allow students and teachers to participate in voluntary prayer, but that student-led religious activities are constitutionally protected. He said it was not clear that there were any.
“However, school-led, teacher-led student participation is not constitutionally protected,” Boren said.
According to the wording of the rule, failure to adopt the policy will result in loss of accreditation. Bolen said children at the school have all sorts of opportunities to pray, including “Meet in the Pole” and “Fellowship of Christian Athletes” meetings.
“We have no religious issues with our students and this creates a legal quagmire for the district, so I recommend rejecting this rule,” Boren said.
After the meeting, Brooks tried to point out the state school board's overreach, but said he wished the board had been better prepared.
“I feel bad for the person being sent to have to go through these challenges, especially the fact that, as I understand it, there is currently no attorney working full time on the State Board of Education.” said Brooks. “Some of these highly technical questions relate to administrative law, so I think it was important to have a legal expert come in and be able to answer those questions.”
Brooks said school board leaders are “activists” who are trying to “cross the line.”
Superintendent Ryan Walters issued a statement after the meeting, arguing that Democrats were targeting the Oklahoma Constitution and established precedent.
“Democrats will stop at nothing to take back control of our children's education. On behalf of Oklahoma students, Oklahoma families will never give in to their demands,” Walters' statement reads. It's dark.
