The Senate Committee on Education K‑16 voted 8‑3 to report House Bill 3372 after an extended debate over how narrowly to define prohibited outside consulting by district administrators.

Sen. Mark Middleton, sponsor of the bill, said the measure is intended to prevent administrators from profiting from decisions they can influence in their employing district. Committee members spent much of the discussion trying to reconcile that intent with common practices in Texas school systems where administrators or specialists sometimes consult for neighboring districts or provide specialized services.

Critics said the bill as drafted was too broad. Sen. West and others raised scenarios where districts rely on outside administrators or specialists from other districts to help adopt model programs, or where small-district employees officiate games, teach dual-credit courses, or provide limited summer work. Sen. Bettencourt and other members described administrative practices in county government and urged a narrower approach that would not bar legitimate off‑duty work.

Sen. Middleton and supporters repeatedly emphasized the bill targets higher-level administrators (not classroom teachers) and aims to curb self-dealing where an employee or their business uses their position to secure contracts. Witnesses and senators asked about carve-outs for special education consultants, regional education service centers, and whether a Board of Trustees signoff or other approval mechanism should be required. The Texas Council of Administrators of Special Education was reported to have requested narrowing to protect certain training roles.

The committee substitute was adopted and the bill was reported favorably, with the roll showing 8 ayes and 3 nays. Members said they expected to continue work on the language before the floor to address concerns about small districts, summer work, teaching duties, and the potential reach of a $10,000 civil penalty per violation that was discussed in committee testimony.

The vote sends the bill to the full Senate. Supporters said it would deter conflicts of interest; opponents warned it could hamper districts' ability to share expertise and could inadvertently affect part‑time or specialty work common in rural districts.