Bill Description: House Bill 5 would codify and grant certain immunity to behavioral threat assessment and management teams in K-12 schools.
Rating: -1
Does it in any way restrict public access to information related to government activity or otherwise compromise government transparency, accountability, or election integrity? Conversely, does it increase public access to information related to government activity or increase government transparency, accountability, or election integrity?
House Bill 5 would create Section 5-349, Idaho Code, to codify and grant certain immunity to behavioral threat assessment and management teams in K-12 schools. This new section would say, "It is the policy of this state to strive to prevent targeted violence in public schools through the use of behavioral threat assessment and management teams in school districts and public charter schools."
The statute does not set the guidelines for how these teams should be established or the policies and procedures they should follow, leaving these determinations to the "Idaho school safety and security program."
The bill grants broad immunity from liability to behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) teams "for damages or injuries arising from a failure of the BTAM team of a school district or public charter school to prevent an act of targeted violence." To receive immunity, the team must have "acted in good faith" and "conducted its threat assessment, if any, without violating any state or federal laws regarding the right to keep and bear arms; confidentiality and student privacy; and parental rights."
The appropriateness of these teams is difficult to gauge, in part because the bill does not define the scope or practices for them. Broadly speaking, government schools do have a degree of responsibility to protect students while also respecting their rights, so the nod to "the right to keep and bear arms; confidentiality and student privacy; and parental rights" is appropriate. It should be noted, though, that this reference is limited to abiding by "state or federal laws" rather than broader principles.
There is a fine line to walk here, and the Legislature is not engaging in much oversight, which means we do not know if these teams will do enough to protect students or if, conversely, they will be overzealous and violate the rights of students by conducting unwarranted inquisitions or surveillance.
A more substantive objection to this bill is the broad immunity it grants. It is always concerning when government tries to limit its own liability. It is one thing to limit the liability of private volunteers (as was done last year through a carve-out for volunteer ski and bike patrollers — though not other volunteers). It is quite another thing for government to exempt its own employees from liability for failing to accomplish the task for which they were hired.
Maintaining accountability for government is imperative, especially when dealing with complex matters involving the delicate balance between providing safety and respecting individual rights. Broad grants of immunity compromise accountability and can provide a dangerous sense of detachment to government employees entrusted with critical responsibilities.
(-1)
