Conference committee agrees to file nonconcur on cyberbullying bill after debate over study vs. action

Members of the conference committee reconvening to consider Senate Bill 210 on cyberbullying agreed to file a nonconcur report after days of bargaining over bill language and whether the legislature should order a study or take immediate action.

The disagreement centered on two questions: whether to return the bill to its original focus on prevention and add a study committee element, and whether new reporting requirements and operational changes should be enacted now. Proponents of immediate changes said existing laws are not being implemented; others argued a study is needed to determine why implementation is failing.

Representative Cordelli opened the reconvened session by proposing changes to the bill’s composition and removing a provision tied to open enrollment. The conference discussed going “back to the original bill” and combining prevention language with a study committee so the panel could both enact some changes and gather further data.

Representative Freeman, a House member on the conference committee, urged action rather than delay. “This is the type of situation that warrants action, not in 6 months, not in a year, but now,” Freeman said, arguing that rising student mental health issues and suicides require prompt legislative and district responses.

Senator Sullivan, speaking for the Senate caucus, responded that the state already has a bullying statute and Department of Education guidance but that those measures are not being implemented correctly in schools. “It is not being implemented correctly in the schools,” Sullivan said, adding that the committee should investigate why current laws and local zero-tolerance policies are failing to protect students before rewriting statutes.

Committee members also debated specific reporting and procedural language proposed in the bill. One provision would require districts to report additional information such as incidents when police are called to schools; another would allow waivers to parental notification but lacked a set time frame for informing parents when a waiver is used. Supporters said the extra reporting would give the committee data independent of a study; critics said enforcement and accountability—rather than new statutes—are the core issues.

After discussion the conference committee decided there was no agreement between the House and Senate positions. The committee agreed to a nonconcur report and to place the matter on the consent calendar; the panel did not produce a joint report or revised bill text at that meeting.

Discussion (not action) in the session included proposals to remove the open-enrollment language, attach a study committee to prevention-focused language, and require districts to report police responses to incidents. The formal action recorded was a consensus to file a nonconcur report; no legislative language was adopted in conference at that time.

The committee did not set a new deadline for follow-up; members said any next steps would depend on future negotiations between the House and Senate caucuses.