Conference panel deadlocks on SB 96 after debate over parent notification, abuse standard and educator penalties

A committee of conference on Senate Bill 96 recessed without agreement after House and Senate negotiators failed to reach consensus on how the measure would treat parental notification, the definition of abuse, and penalties for educators.

Senator (prime sponsor of SB 96) said the bill’s original purpose was narrow: to prevent situations like an incident in Manchester and to ensure “teachers and administrators do not lie to parents.” The senator objected to language in the House-amended draft that, in the senator’s view, carved out “actual psychological and emotional injury” so broadly that it would mean such harms “does not constitute a compelling [state] interest.” The senator said, “there’s no way in the world I’m gonna accept that language,” and offered an amended draft meant to combine House and Senate language while keeping the bill focused on credentialed educators and administrators.

Representatives and senators debated whether the bill should apply to third-party medical or mental-health contractors such as guidance counselors or school nurses. One House member said such professionals are often covered under educator definitions in collective-bargaining agreements and could be included as “educators” for the statute’s purposes. The Senate negotiators said they preferred the statute to refer to “credentialed educators and administrators,” and noted they had consulted Diane Fenton about a single definition that could be used consistently across statute.

A central disagreement concerned the “compelling state interest” language that would permit withholding information from parents. The Senate-sided amendment removed the phrase “potential or actual psychological or emotional injury” from the bill’s compelling-interest clause and retained the existing statutory definition of abuse in RSA 169-C:3 as the standard for withholding information. The senator emphasized that if an act meets the statutory definition of abuse, “then that may be a compelling reason that is a compelling reason to withhold information,” and that districts should document such decisions in the student record.

The senator said she added a reporting requirement to the draft: if information is withheld, the school must record a written reason in the student’s record and report the withholding to the local school board in a nonpublic session at the next board meeting. “If they withhold and there’s a violation of that, it’s the school district who’s liable,” she said.

Negotiators also debated disciplinary consequences for certified educators. The House-drafted language used discretionary language allowing the Department of Education to suspend credentials; the Senate countered with language saying a credentialed educator or administrator found to have willfully violated the chapter “shall be deemed to have violated the code of conduct and shall be subject to disciplinary action,” leaving the precise remedy to the State Board of Education. The Senate also proposed removing penalty language that targeted third-party contractors.

After further caucusing, House members announced they would not concur with the conference committee report. Several House members explicitly recorded “I vote non concur” as the committee concluded, and the conference did not produce an agreed bill.

The committee recessed and planned further caucusing but left SB 96 without an agreed conference report, meaning the competing positions remain unresolved.

Outcome and next steps: negotiators discussed edits to definition, reporting, the abuse standard, and disciplinary language; the House declined to concur with the committee report and the conference ended without agreement. The Senate and House positions remain opposed and further negotiation or refiled legislation in a future session was discussed.