Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Board of Education asks Appropriations Committee for larger budget, legal counsel retainer
Summary
The State Board of Education told the House Appropriations Committee that it needs additional operating funds for FY26, a half-year FY25 adjustment for legal counsel and a one-time appropriation to update long-neglected rule series. Board leaders said the agency no longer provides legal support and the board is operating on a "shoestring budget."
Get email alerts on the Education Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The State Board of Education asked the House Appropriations Committee on Feb. 25 for increased funding to support legal counsel, rulemaking and member stipends.
Jennifer Dax Samuelson, chair of the State Board of Education, and Tammy Colby, vice chair, told the committee the board's annual operating budget has been flat-funded at about $70,708 since FY21 and that the board can no longer rely on the Agency of Education for legal support. "We operate very much on a shoestring budget," Colby said, describing limits on the board's ability to retain counsel and to perform the multiyear work of updating long-neglected rules.
Why it matters: The board is the state's primary rulemaking body for public education and for approved independent schools. Board members said several rule series have not been updated for more than a decade, some still reference a commissioner position that no longer exists, and litigation and administrative responsibilities require ready access to counsel. Board leaders said those duties continue under current law while the legislature considers possible governance changes.
Board request and rationale The board presented its FY26 package in three buckets: (1) a mid‑year FY25 budget adjustment to cover a legal counsel retainer for the remainder of FY25; (2) an increase to the FY26 operating budget for ongoing counsel, technical consultants and reinstatement of national membership; and (3) a one-time, multiyear appropriation to comprehensively update the board's rule canon.
- Legal counsel: The board reported it has transitioned to outside counsel since the Agency of Education stopped providing legal support about a year and a half ago. Board leaders said a retainer would allow faster response when legal questions arise; the board cited an estimate of $36,000 a year for a retainer and requested $18,000 to cover the second half of FY25. The board said relying on per-issue contracting can take two to three months from solicitation to onboarding an attorney.
- FY26 operating requests: The board seeks an enlarged base operating budget to fund (a) higher annual stipends for members, (b) independent counsel to update career and technical education (CTE) rules last revised in 2002, (c) reestablishing membership in the National Association of State Boards of Education, and (d) technical support to evaluate proposed student standards submitted to the board by the Act 1 working group. The board proposed $5,000 per board member as an annual stipend to better reflect the time members said they spend in meetings and preparation.
- One-time rule update appropriation: The board asked for a multiyear appropriation to review, consolidate and modernize the state's education rule canon. Board members said many rule series are inconsistent with current statute or are obsolete and that some rules might be converted to agency regulations or sunset entirely after review.
Questions and committee concerns Committee members pressed the board on timing, overlap with a pending gubernatorial proposal to shift some rulemaking responsibilities to the Agency of Education, and whether approving stipends for this board would set a precedent for many other state boards. Committee members also raised capacity questions about whether the agency could absorb additional rulemaking work. Samuelson and Colby said the question of who should hold rulemaking authority is a policy decision for the legislature; in the meantime, the board said it remains statutorily responsible for rules and for adjudicatory duties that can require counsel.
Samuelson emphasized the board's public approach to drafting rules: the board typically holds open stakeholder and committee sessions before formally initiating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking timeline, which it said produces more implementable rules and broader buy-in from educators and communities.
Numbers and budget scale The board said its base budget has been flat at about $70,708 since FY21. The estimate for an attorney retainer was $36,000 per year (explained as $18,000 for half of FY25). The board listed a request of $50,000 to support stipends in FY26 (and noted that some per-meeting reimbursements already exist), $50,000 for a rule-series update line, and additional items including membership in the National Association of State Boards of Education and technical support for student standards work. During the hearing at least one lawmaker referenced a combined base and one-time request totaling $559,000; the board's materials provided more granular line items but committee members asked staff to reconcile net increases and existing reimbursements.
What the board asked the committee to do Board leaders asked the Appropriations Committee to consider a FY25 budget adjustment to secure a short-term attorney retainer and to include increased FY26 base funding and a targeted one-time appropriation for comprehensive rule revision. They said that without additional funds the board cannot reliably meet its statutory duties while any longer-term governance decisions are pending.
Looking ahead Committee members signaled broad sympathy for the board's legal-counsel need but also cautioned that approving stipends or large base increases for one board could create pressure across the many state boards and commissions. Several members recommended further review of net budget impacts and whether some responsibilities should shift if the legislature adopts a broader education governance restructuring. Samuelson said the board would rely on the committee's direction and that the board's most urgent short-term need is access to counsel while larger structural questions are resolved.
Ending note: Samuelson closed by reminding the committee that updating the rules is intended to provide a stable, implementable framework for school districts and educators, and to reduce confusion in the field irrespective of future governance changes.

