Committees amend harassment bill after constitutional and special‑education concerns

Senators on the joint Education and Labor committees on March 23 amended House Bill 1888 — a measure aimed at strengthening protections for education workers — after extended testimony and legal concerns. The committees struck language criminalizing ‘‘disrupts or interferes’’ and moved to incorporate more specific penalties for intentional bodily injury, aligning parts of the bill with provisions in Senate Bill 2900 and authorizing the Attorney General to assist education workers and sports officials who have been subject to harassment or intentional bodily injury.

The Office of the Public Defender urged caution. ‘‘We believe [the bill] is overly broad, vague, and would not withstand constitutional scrutiny,’’ said Haley Chang, first deputy public defender, citing potential First Amendment problems and overlapping criminal statutes that already protect educators. She argued existing statutes — including terroristic threatening and assault provisions that already escalate penalties for offenses against educational workers — could address many incidents cited by proponents.

Several parents and special‑education advocates testified against parts of the bill, saying the language could criminalize necessary advocacy. Michelle Pestalmaga recounted her daughter’s experience and said that a broadly written statute might make parents who must advocate for their children feel criminalized: ‘‘The trauma... she still has nightmares about what happened to her at school,’’ Pestalmaga said, urging careful drafting so families who push for services are not chilled.

Supporters, including the Department of Education and HSTA representatives, described the bill as a needed layer of protection for educators who face threats and harassment in school and online. The committee adopted amendments to delete the ‘‘disrupts or interferes’’ language cited by the Public Defender and to narrow definitions; members also recommended removing ‘‘administrator’’ from the protected‑class definition to focus on staff with direct student contact.

The committees approved the amended measure and will forward it with the changes for further legislative processing. Members said technical and constitutional concerns voiced by the Public Defender and parent advocates informed the final amendments and that the Attorney General’s office should be prepared to clarify how proposed provisions would operate with existing criminal statutes.