Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Bullying Prevention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers split on bullying bill: study committee or immediate legal changes
Summary
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.
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.
