2025 Session Week 3 Update From Senator Tempel

The Senate has been working through implementing a new computer system these first few weeks. There have been bills scheduled for hearing that did not receive proper public notice for the three days. In my case, I had a notice for hearing on my desk, but the public notice was never completed. In looking into the issue, I found out there are two sides of this new improved system that don’t seem to be communicating. The part the staff uses for input at times does not share with the part you and I see. Therefore, a search for a bill may show up differently than if you search for the same bill by looking for it by committee search. All this is found at legmt.gov. It is confusing, but they are working on figuring out solutions. In visiting with a first-year legislator, he mentioned he felt like the overall legislative process was like herding cats or chickens. All I could say was, wait until you cannot tell the difference between the two.

As for myself, I have been working on Senate Bill 138 that aims to allow teachers to remove disruptive students from their classroom. In doing so, teachers will be able to teach the remaining students without interruptions. The bill has had vocal opposition; it seems those disruptive students have more legal rights than the students and teachers. We were careful to make sure the bill takes into account the students with disabilities on Individual Education Plans (IEP) and 504s, but it is still a fight to get this passed so teachers can teach. Hoping to get this out of the Education Committee Tuesday, Jan. 28th, and to the Senate floor next week. I want to thank all the educators who have supported me in this.

Another bill, SB 66, that came to the floor trying to define terms like bias, conflict of interest, disposition, and impartiality, in relation to judicial officers. As an example, bias would be, “a prejudice for or against a party or issue arising for reasons other than the facts of a case or the law governing a case. Bias in a judicial officer may be inferred from comments, facial expressions, prior activity, distortion of the law to obtain a particular result, or a conflict of interest.” Just because I might cringe at a statement, I would hope I was not considered biased because of that, I voted “no.”

As Always Stay Safe!

[email protected]