Insurance questions remain as bill on arming school staff advances

Several school staff and law enforcement members spoke Monday in support of a bill providing more funding and training requirements for school law enforcement and staff carrying firearms at Iowa high schools. But they said the bill does not address the current roadblock to getting armed personnel in schools: insurance.

Under House Study Bill 675, school employees would be allowed to carry weapons on school grounds if issued a permit under the bill. The permitting process requires applicants to complete a firearms safety course, in addition to one-time legal training on issues like qualified immunity, as well as annual communication and emergency medical trainings approved by the Iowa Department of Public Safety.

Angela Olsen, an administrator at the Spirit Lake Community School District, said while she supports the measure, Iowa law already permits school personnel to carry firearms on school grounds. In February 2022, the school district rolled out its safety plan, which included having trained, armed school staff. That policy was repealed in June 2023, after the district was informed by its insurer, EMC Insurance, that its liability insurance would not be renewed if the district kept its policy of allowing employees to carry firearms on school campuses.

Olsen said there is a pressing need for allowing school staff to carry weapons, pointing to the Jan. 4 shooting at Perry High School where a 17-year-old student killed a 11-year-old boy and injured seven other students and staff. The school principal, Dan Marburger, was critically wounded during the shooting when accounts say he distracted the shooter to protect students. Marburger later died of his injuries.

The bill includes provisions requiring school districts with more than 8,000 students to have an school resource officer (SRO), a law-enforcement official who works full- or part-time in schools or to have at least one private school security officer at each high school.

Schools with less than 8,000 students would be recommended, but not required, to employ SROs or security officers at high schools. The state would establish a school security personnel grant program fund that would match up to $50,000 for employing security personnel.

While having more law enforcement and security officers in schools is helpful, Olsen said it may not be enough during an active shooter situation. The Spirit Lake Community School District employs an SRO, she said, but “the reality is our SRO can be in one place at one time, and he’s also employed by our city police.” In an active shooter situation, an SRO may not be at the building where the incident is happening — or may not even be on campus at the time of the threat, she said.

“I would compare it to Perry,” Olsen said. “Like, they have an SRO too, but he wasn’t there. And so if we have the ability to have multiple people in multiple buildings, at all times of the day — cover our 6 a.m., cover our 10 p.m. events — it’s the only way to address an active shooter at the time.”

Cherokee School Board President Jodi Thomas criticized the bill for not providing a solution for school districts trying to allow employees to carry firearms at school who get denied insurance coverage. The Cherokee Community School District also implemented a policy allowing school staff to be armed, which was rescinded after the district received a notice of non-renewal from EMC.

“There is no need to reinvent the wheel here,” Thomas said. “There is already legislation in place that allows local control for school boards to develop their own safety plans and do what is best for them.”

Other speakers, like Hannah Hayes, a senior at Roosevelt High School, said adding more firearms to schools will not improve school safety.

“As a student myself, I can tell you that adding more guns to schools is not going to make me safer,” Hayes said. “Making schools a war zone is not going to make me feel safer. … This doesn’t provide enough training or oversight for teachers. It takes resources away from actual solutions such as mental health support, conflict resolution programs and other preventative measures.”

Hayes also criticized the provision in the bill that provides qualified immunity to employees permitted to carry firearms from criminal or civil liabilities for damages related to “the application of reasonable force at the place of employment.” Qualified immunity protects government officials in lawsuits for damages alleging a plaintiff’s rights were violated, only allowing cases when they violate “clearly established” constitutional or statutory rights.

Speaking on behalf of Students Demand Action, a gun regulation advocacy group, Hayes said the provision “raises concerns about accountability and oversight.”

Lisa Davis-Cook with the Iowa Association for Justice also questioned the qualified immunity provision — a legal protection typically only granted to law enforcement officers.

“I understand the desire to have some immunity in this for folks,” Davis-Cook said. “My concern is when we’re talking about reasonable force, it might be reasonable force against a perpetrator that’s coming in with a gun, but what about the possibility of other children being hurt?”

Nick Buggia with the National Rifle Association said the bill’s provisions requiring additional training and permits to carry firearms at schools would set “a bad precedent for those who want to be able to defend themselves while while going to school.”

“From our standpoint, the state of Iowa has already determined that with with the proper licenses and training and approval, it’s legal to carry in a school,” Buggia said. “I don’t see the reason why this needs to be complicated any further.”

In addition to training for school staff carrying firearms, the public safety department would also be required to implement annual “live scenario training” and quarterly live firearm training for school employees.

Catherine Lucas with the Iowa Department of Public Safety said there are several aspects to the bill that need to be clarified, including whether school employees would be carrying concealed weapons or openly carrying firearms, and what types of firearms could be brought into schools. Additionally, states that have implemented firearms training programs for school personnel have more staff designated for training, she said.

“Ohio has a program like this, and they have a staff of 40 — 20 instructors that do this,” Lucas said “Currently, the Governor’s School Safety bureau in Iowa has one sworn member. So rolling out all this training is going to be a very significant lift on the Department of Public Safety, and we just asked that if it is moving forward, that that is taken into consideration.”

The bill advanced out of subcommittee on a 2-1 vote and moves to the full House Public Safety Committee. The bill needs committee approval this week ahead of the Legislature’s “funnel” deadline to remain eligible for further debate.

Rep. Phil Thompson, R-Jefferson, said setting a high bar in permit and training standards is “invaluable” in preparing schools and staff to deal with shooting threats. But he said he would continue to work on addressing concerns about insurance in regard to actual implementation of school firearm policies.

“We do have some insurance issues to address,” Thompson said. “This bill will be crafted a little bit more, and we do hope to have EMC at the table working with us a little bit more directly on this as we we try to craft something that works that’s implementable for schools and allow them to have affordable insurance.”