Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposal to let state review school compliance draws opposition from AG, school leaders
Summary
Representative Nearing proposed a bill to let an "interested person" submit a form to the State Board of Public School Education to trigger an Attorney General review of whether a school is complying with education statutes, but the attorney general's office and school groups opposed the idea without added resources or clearer limits.
Representative Nearing (District 23) told the committee House Bill 1288 aims to give parents and residents an accessible, no‑cost path to have alleged noncompliance with education statutes reviewed by state authorities when local remedies fail. "When a petitioner cannot get relief at the local level, this bill provides a mechanism to address that issue at no cost to the petitioner or the school district," Nearing said.
Supporters argued the legislature should pair statutes with practical enforcement so schools cannot ignore statutory duties. Unpaid citizen legislator Travis Zablotny testified in support and said the proposal addresses a common frustration: laws passed by the Legislature lack clear, affordable enforcement pathways for parents.
The attorney general's office opposed the bill without additional resources. Assistant Attorney General Lisonbee Hicks said the Department of Public Instruction already has an administrative corrective‑action code (Ch. 67‑22) and that the office’s general counsel function receives frequent reference questions; implementing the bill’s formal review and written‑finding process would require a dedicated, specialized FTE and an estimated biennial cost included in the written testimony. Hicks warned that the State Board of Public School Education historically handles a narrow set of duties and that the bill would expand responsibilities without funding.
The North Dakota School Boards Association (NDSBA) also opposed the bill. Executive Director Amy DeCook said the measure would invite many complaints, including frivolous or politically motivated requests, and would circumvent existing local complaint and grievance processes. DeCook told the committee that local boards, the Department of Public Instruction and existing administrative remedies are already used to address compliance concerns and that creating a new state‑level pathway would duplicate functions and divert limited resources.
Paul Stremick, representing a group of large school districts, echoed concerns about duplication and added that outside investigators are often hired when local processes are not appropriate; those investigations produce findings that can be further elevated. Several committee members questioned whether the bill would improve outcomes or simply create new processes that school districts and state offices cannot support without funding.
No committee vote was taken; witnesses asked the committee either to add resources for state action or to strengthen and publicize existing administrative remedies instead of creating a new unfunded review mechanism.
