Legislators field questions in Huron about ‘school chaplain’ bill and district authority
February 01, 2025 | Huron, Beadle County, South Dakota
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
HURON, S.D. — Residents at a Huron Chamber forum asked lawmakers detailed questions about a House bill that would authorize chaplains in public schools and require school districts to adopt related policies.
Gary Coffin, a Huron resident, asked several technical questions about the bill — identified in the forum as House Bill 1054 — including how the bill defines “religious affiliation,” which applicants are disqualified under criminal background checks, and whether districts could exercise discretion to refuse an applicant who has no automatic disqualifying offense. Coffin also asked about a pending amendment that would change the language from volunteers only to “or be employed.”
Representative Lana Greenfield, a co‑sponsor who said she signed on because of past experience calling clergy to schools after student suicides, acknowledged the bill’s difficult tradeoffs. Greenfield said the bill “is strictly for a school to decide to set up a policy or not,” and she agreed Coffin raised valid questions about the amendment and employment language. “This is something that the school may want to set up or may not want to set up,” Greenfield said; she also said the bill will be heard in committee on Monday.
Nut graf: The forum’s discussion focused on whether the state should require school districts to create policies authorizing chaplains and on how the bill’s wording could change district discretion, background checks and the participation of employed staff. Legislators at the forum urged careful review in committee and flagged concerns about imposing uniform requirements across all districts.
Other lawmakers expressed concern about the bill’s mandatory language. One legislator warned that the word “shall” could force districts to adopt a uniform policy and said local school boards should be left to set policy to avoid unintended consequences. Another attendee representing local school staff asked whether a hired school employee could also serve in a chaplain role or be compensated for it; Greenfield said such operational questions should be resolved in committee debate.
Ending: Greenfield said she planned to speak to the bill’s sponsor, Representative Nordstrom, before the committee hearing. Legislators at the forum did not report any committee vote; they described the matter as scheduled for future committee consideration and invited the public to submit questions and testimony prior to the hearing.
Gary Coffin, a Huron resident, asked several technical questions about the bill — identified in the forum as House Bill 1054 — including how the bill defines “religious affiliation,” which applicants are disqualified under criminal background checks, and whether districts could exercise discretion to refuse an applicant who has no automatic disqualifying offense. Coffin also asked about a pending amendment that would change the language from volunteers only to “or be employed.”
Representative Lana Greenfield, a co‑sponsor who said she signed on because of past experience calling clergy to schools after student suicides, acknowledged the bill’s difficult tradeoffs. Greenfield said the bill “is strictly for a school to decide to set up a policy or not,” and she agreed Coffin raised valid questions about the amendment and employment language. “This is something that the school may want to set up or may not want to set up,” Greenfield said; she also said the bill will be heard in committee on Monday.
Nut graf: The forum’s discussion focused on whether the state should require school districts to create policies authorizing chaplains and on how the bill’s wording could change district discretion, background checks and the participation of employed staff. Legislators at the forum urged careful review in committee and flagged concerns about imposing uniform requirements across all districts.
Other lawmakers expressed concern about the bill’s mandatory language. One legislator warned that the word “shall” could force districts to adopt a uniform policy and said local school boards should be left to set policy to avoid unintended consequences. Another attendee representing local school staff asked whether a hired school employee could also serve in a chaplain role or be compensated for it; Greenfield said such operational questions should be resolved in committee debate.
Ending: Greenfield said she planned to speak to the bill’s sponsor, Representative Nordstrom, before the committee hearing. Legislators at the forum did not report any committee vote; they described the matter as scheduled for future committee consideration and invited the public to submit questions and testimony prior to the hearing.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting