Committee refers proposal to give State Superintendent subpoena power to criminal subcommittee after prolonged questioning

A proposal to give the State Superintendent of Education the authority to issue subpoenas during teacher‑licensing investigations was referred to the Judiciary Committee's criminal subcommittee on Wednesday after extended questioning from members concerned about scope and safeguards.

Representative Alban introduced House Bill 498 on behalf of the State Superintendent of Education. She said the Department needs subpoena power during the investigative phase so it can obtain records and witness statements when local employers or school officials will not cooperate. “The Department's legal office and their investigator work together to determine whether the matter should move forward,” Alban said, explaining the change would allow earlier collection of evidence needed to decide whether to pursue action against a license.

Dr. Eric Mackey, State Superintendent of Education, and department lawyers attended the hearing. Tina Hammons, an attorney with the department, told the committee that subpoenas under the bill could be served in the department's name or through “any circuit judge, magistrate, or district judge” and that recipients could seek to quash a subpoena in court. “If you would like to quash the subpoena or push back on the subpoena, there's the due process to request that and then we would go into circuit court,” Hammons said.

Committee members pressed sponsors on the practical differences between investigative subpoenas and existing administrative or criminal processes. Representative Streeter and others asked whether witness statements in the investigatory stage would be under oath and whether taking statements could affect later criminal prosecutions. Hammons and the department's representatives said investigators are APO‑certified and that investigators would pursue criminal referrals to law enforcement when warranted, but several members remained concerned about the timing and potential for parallel administrative and criminal tracks to conflict.

Representative Stringer described the authority as “a lot” for a single official during an investigatory stage, noting potential for subpoenas for records including phone content and emails before jeopardy has attached. Other members compared the request to existing subpoena authority exercised by other agencies such as the Department of Revenue and to Department of Human Resources practice, but several sought clearer procedural guardrails.

After discussion, a committee member moved to carry HB 498 over and to assign it to the criminal subcommittee for additional consideration. The chair announced the subcommittee meeting for next Tuesday at 11:45 a.m. in Room 601 to further review the subpoena language and related safeguards.

What the bill would do: HB 498 would allow the State Superintendent or the State Department of Education to issue subpoenas for witness testimony, documents and records during the investigative phase of complaints against teachers and other school employees. The sponsor said the department modeled the language after other agencies such as the Department of Revenue and intends that due‑process motions to quash would be handled in circuit court.

What remained unresolved: Committee members asked for more explicit limits on the subpoena power, clarity about who may issue and review subpoenas, protections for criminal investigations so administrative interviews do not prejudice prosecutions, and how law enforcement notification would occur when investigators discover evidence of a crime. The committee did not vote on HB 498; instead it referred the bill to the criminal subcommittee for amendment and further hearings.

Committee action: HB 498 was carried over and assigned to the criminal subcommittee; a follow‑up meeting was scheduled for next Tuesday at 11:45 a.m. in Room 601.