[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6196798,"mediaKeyId","3857092-4ae9c08e5898849fa27470395bfed7d3","parentId",3857092,"title","Lawmakers split on bullying bill: study committee or immediate legal changes","audioSeconds",1458,"startMs",12360000,"endMs",13818000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3857092-4ae9c08e5898849fa27470395bfed7d3&start=12360&end=13818","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3857092-4ae9c08e5898849fa27470395bfed7d3/thumbnail_12360000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6196798/New-Hampshire/Lawmakers-split-on-bullying-bill-study-committee-or-immediate-legal-changes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6196798-81b622e972814b05b5c0413de6a5b25c/orig.mp4?Expires=1774835054&Signature=AEqj6~zbD24SlW7MZuWfVKd0kYKHDmvIiHRCLdVhr3aT3eWnNuYUfRLnlqRi86CiAHm8OUylc6bblLfNFe9vs8dcYtM1SXXD9p46~F5ivcCbdBgsNvlCCwbbolGKlkmIJcwQ7sQqtHKHl4bQU0qUPU2qVhXWXXQDfr6V~DGmBdSbj~Kj4pgeW941VG3I0RGaZWy3ctD4wtnR5m~79oONl-Y-8p7e0o9qCgdleN69wpSftOhESe3ZzkvGwQyVlp4gOO0zLaXu1tHOUVr0zSy85wgunOxrGFDZRIZ0HYs49mEE2-tPPWBEIfqB2IVc0I~fJY3i2KrlJfB-~H1PmeyWtQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-06-17T18:16:53Z","article","Conferees on Senate Bill 210 debated sharply over whether the state should form a study committee to examine bullying and prevention or move forward now with stricter statutory requirements recommended by the House.

Madam Chair (identified in the session) favored restoring the original Senate bill’s study‑committee approach, arguing that existing law and Department of Education guidance already require written procedures, reporting and notification. “The thing about the schools having…open enrollment has to be deleted from the House version,” the chair said when describing her preference to return to the original Senate study framework.

Representative Cordelli pressed for immediate action, citing recent, serious bullying‑related incidents and saying the House version adds specific safeguards: increased parent/guardian notification timeframes, required information in student handbooks, and a lowered civil standard from gross negligence to negligence to allow more parental private actions. “Unless we take action, I don't think we're going to stop bullying or reduce the number of bullying incidents,” Cordelli said, urging statutory change rather than further study.

Other conferees urged a middle path. Senator Sullivan and others supported a targeted study that would examine gaps in enforcement of existing laws — including cyberbullying — and return results that could form the basis for future statutory changes. Representative Drei described a constituent case of serious injury and said families sought remedies, not more study: the family “needed a private right of action. They didn't have one.”

Conferees discussed operational details including a proposed deadline for the study committee’s report (noted in debate as Nov. 1, 2025), the practical timeline for implementing legislative fixes (which could push substantive changes into 2027), and whether certain waivers in statute (for example a superintendent’s ability to delay parent notification) should be limited to a fixed number of school days. Several members also proposed explicitly including cyberbullying in any study mandate.

The committee recessed to allow members to continue caucuses and to return with replacement members and clarifications; the chair said the conference would reconvene no later than Thursday and that final text would need to be in by 4 p.m. on that day. No final agreement was reached in the session recorded.

What’s next: Conferees will continue negotiations; the conference was recessed and scheduled to reconvene with further work on definitions, enforcement gaps and whether to combine a study committee with targeted statutory changes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Committee of Conference on SB 96, SB 87, SB 210, SB 206 (06/17/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","A committee of conference on Senate Bill 210 split over whether to return to a Senate study committee to examine bullying and prevention or to adopt the House’s more prescriptive measures requiring parental notification, handbook information and a potential private right of action; conferees recessed the conference for further work.","taxTitle","Senate , Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",29500,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6196800,"Conferees approve allowing salons and barbershops one‑day on‑premise alcohol licenses with limits",470,10900000,11370000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3857092-4ae9c08e5898849fa27470395bfed7d3&start=10900&end=11370","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3857092-4ae9c08e5898849fa27470395bfed7d3/thumbnail_10900000.jpg","/articles/6196800/New-Hampshire/Conferees-approve-allowing-salons-and-barbershops-oneday-onpremise-alcohol-licenses-with-limits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6196800-67c535a8b3525005bc9ea9e2d838d67a/orig.mp4?Expires=1774835054&Signature=B1Fk~SfLGkilknLiTkCrY4mHg~OkU~hr5tM1KRWNErKxgpLkYj6TJoDlRTct46Q2p9TCP578oDemd9zSb~A-f8x-hSJudef~khVWzVM9JVrkc8HPmOHmE-330zwGmRBw7VXEIs4sEYV08sLNYVS2Rj1mFrdnlgUjvxGzpDSWzHh6fs2h2~MeXukVlq0trXJpg3NLz5lsSopaa5qQtR7ButxL6Awt3lu-Hz0BijRnsBpf00RpTZcBoO1L2pRmwVP9yUjQGT5BRxVaxovn0GB7sR9pFXhVsTq-eqLPwEbVGu0flPXppkOGY8S45KyFUe404FczEFxqERJIJ~pSMznalw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Committee of Conference on Senate Bill 87 agreed to language that would let salons and barbershops obtain one‑day on‑premise liquor licenses, with conferees endorsing the House’s practical approach to training and limits on service.

Senator Waters, who introduced the measure, described an amendment allowing short‑term on‑site service for customers during long appointments such as braiding or coloring, and said the bill’s aim was to formalize a practice already occurring in some businesses. “We will shut that down” for barbers who charge for drinks without a license, Waters said, framing the bill as a way to bring existing activity into a regulated, enforceable framework.

Lawmakers debated how many complimentary drinks, if any, to permit. Enforcement officials and several legislators warned that allowing multiple free drinks could create overserving risks and be difficult to police. Senator Murphy, a business owner who said he operates an establishment that serves alcohol, told colleagues, “No one is going to get more than one drink,” and signaled support for the House approach. After discussion the Senate conferees agreed to the House position limiting practical exposure and emphasizing training for servers.

Conferees also discussed enforceability, training requirements for servers to prevent over‑service, and consistency with existing licensing fees. The committee agreed to proceed with drafting the final language; staff were asked to prepare an agreed text so sponsors could sign and move the bill forward.

What’s next: Conferees asked counsel to prepare a final draft, and sponsors said the bill should be ready for signature and submission once the text is finalized. Legislators indicated they would monitor enforcement to ensure the change does not create new public‑safety risks.","A committee approved language to allow salons and barbershops to obtain on‑premise one‑day liquor licenses; conferees limited the practical impact by focusing on training and enforcement and accepted the House position on service rules.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6196804,"Conferees split over disciplinary scope and parental notification in proposed teacher transparency bill",10074,166000,10240000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3857092-4ae9c08e5898849fa27470395bfed7d3&start=166&end=10240","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3857092-4ae9c08e5898849fa27470395bfed7d3/thumbnail_166000.jpg","/articles/6196804/New-Hampshire/Conferees-split-over-disciplinary-scope-and-parental-notification-in-proposed-teacher-transparency-bill","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6196804-178344033e2a7d9af91ea2af089f1fe6/orig.mp4?Expires=1774835054&Signature=BiL-kIWVcrPTc9jeY8ehnH85YgI2jQ2hCcaFWP4mXC6TbQmzAtxufVoUZMcyIA99szcHUM5lV55oiIjApG1ymHnt1Jp9lBLmuZLqcFTUok1mEWoo1TctnCkbV8Vrd-TwC-ulN6AGZZKseF8eQ4evNB37MJ9bAXx3S-lSjuynksUxmIyTH3qfsSaGvmxpgognfXpVz6axtdBvpT~mb7AzBxo4y2~huIPSnJzzmTY8T0n1ZlZ6AJrwFx~TKNzPLjMBd9aX6fni6EhRAwe8Hdg-aD9ACzbAAoJC-h8BQkYdgHNpkIj0ZYm4yqtJQN6sUUs8piuvK3X-8ojoSi8KHksbXQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Committee of Conference on Senate Bill 96 ended without agreement after lawmakers disputed which workers the bill should cover and how narrowly the bill may permit withholding information about student welfare.

The prime sponsor, identified in the meeting as the senator leading the bill’s effort, said the bill was intended to cover credentialed educators and administrators and to prevent the situation that occurred in Manchester from happening again. The sponsor also said, “There’s no way in the world I’m gonna accept that language” that appears to bar consideration of actual psychological or emotional injury as a compelling state interest for withholding information.

The disagreement centered on three points: whether the bill’s violation and penalty sections should apply to third‑party medical or mental‑health contractors, the wording about what constitutes a compelling state interest for withholding information, and the specifics of disciplinary penalties. The sponsor argued the bill was written for credentialed educators and administrators, not health‑care professionals or contractors, and warned that applying the penalties to people not credentialed by the state would inappropriately broaden the law.

Conferees from the House said their draft added parents and guardians, tightened notification procedures and included a written record requirement when information is withheld; the House draft also added that such a written reason be placed in the student record and reported to the school board in a nonpublic session at the next meeting. As the House delegation summarized: the bill’s amended language “removed potential or actual psychological or emotional injury” from the narrow compelling‑interest carve‑out and added parent/guardian access and enforcement language.

The Senate side objected to creating a separate “compelling state interest” standard that might conflict with RSA 169‑C:3, which already defines abuse, neglect and abandonment and includes psychological and emotional abuse criteria. The sponsor said that if allegations meet the statutory definition of abuse, the statute provides the basis for withholding information and that creating a second, different standard would be confusing.

Conferees also debated disciplinary language. The House draft initially included language saying an educator “may” have credentials suspended for a first offense and “shall” be suspended for a minimum of one year for multiple offenses; the House later explained it had retained department discretion while pushing for strong consequences. The Senate delegation said its language would require the State Board of Education to treat a finding under the chapter as a code‑of‑conduct violation and to impose discipline according to aggravating and mitigating circumstances rather than by a preset statutory term.

After a caucus the committee of conference declined to accept the Senate sponsor’s amendment and the House delegation moved to “nonconcur.” Several House members then verbally recorded “I vote nonconcur.” The conference closed without agreement and the Senate sponsor said the option remained to refile the measure next year.

The committee discussion produced technical changes that conferees flagged for further work: whether the definition of “educator” needs to be restated (several members said existing statutory educator definitions already include administrators, nurses and guidance counselors), whether a three‑year versus five‑year statute of limitations is appropriate for investigations, and whether disciplinary specifics might conflict with collective bargaining agreements and related federal labor law. The conferees also discussed a reporting mechanism to notify local school boards in a nonpublic session when information is withheld because of abuse concerns.

The committee recessed the conference for further member review but made clear the chambers were not in agreement; the House formally recorded its nonconcurrence and the conference ended without a final compromise.

What’s next: Sponsors on both sides indicated there is appetite to continue negotiating technical definitions and penalties. The matter was left unresolved by the conference, and one sponsor said they may refile the bill next year if a compromise cannot be reached now.","A committee of conference on Senate Bill 96 deadlocked after lawmakers clashed over whether the bill’s penalties and its \"compelling state interest\" language should apply to noneducator contractors and over added reporting requirements to school boards and guardianship language.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lawmakers split on bullying bill: study committee or immediate legal changes

Conferees approve allowing salons and barbershops one‑day on‑premise alcohol licenses with limits

Conferees split over disciplinary scope and parental notification in proposed teacher transparency bill