Committee hears bill to give New Hampshire Department of Education subpoena power in educator investigations

House Judiciary Committee members heard testimony on House Bill 520, a proposal to authorize the New Hampshire Department of Education to issue subpoenas in investigations and adjudicatory proceedings under the educator code of conduct. Representative Lynn introduced the bill, saying it would let the DOE compel witnesses and documents both during investigations and at formal hearings.

Supporters said subpoena authority would help the department obtain records and evidence when school districts or other holders will not provide them. Diana Fenton, an attorney with the Department of Education, told the committee the department sometimes must lead investigations in older cases and has run into barriers obtaining district reports, citing a Concord criminal case where the department could not secure a copy of a district investigation report except to view it at an attorneys office. "It was very challenging to get a copy of that report," Fenton said, explaining the department needs a tool to ensure child-safety investigations are complete.

Opponents, including the New Hampshire Education Association and American Federation of Teachers-NH, argued the bill as drafted would give the department too broad a power during the investigative stage without reciprocal subpoena authority for respondents. Brian Hawkins of NEA New Hampshire told the committee the association remains opposed and urged the panel to first determine whether subpoena authority is necessary; he said witnesses previously testified the department generally receives the records it needs. Deborah Howes of the AFT said the bill is a "solution in search of a problem" and voiced concern that the hearings officer who would review motions to quash subpoenas works for the same agency issuing them.

Several committee members asked for clarifications on the bills scope. Representative Bergeron asked about cost allocation language and whether subpoena costs could fall to respondents; Representative Birch pressed the sponsor on whether investigative subpoenas would be one-sided and how subpoena rights would function at the adjudicatory stage. Representative Lynn pointed to subsections that limit investigative subpoenas to the investigating party while providing that, in adjudicatory hearings, a hearings officer may issue subpoenas to both sides. Lynn and Attorney Fenton said the bill was narrowed from earlier drafts to apply to investigations related to the educator code of conduct, not to every DOE activity.

Witnesses from the School Boards Association raised concerns about student records and the mechanics of subpoenas directed at schools, asking for guardrails protecting student records, specifying who at the department could receive documents and how long records would be retained. NEA and AFT witnesses urged the committee to require symmetric subpoena authority for respondents and to preserve timelines for credential holders to prepare their responses.

The committee heard technical questions about how DOE investigatory work intersects with the Attorney Generals Office. Fenton said the attorney general represents the department in court but typically defers to the agencys internal investigative and adjudicatory responsibility; she and Representative Lynn said asking the AG to obtain subpoenas for every agency would be administratively burdensome.

The hearing included repeated requests for drafting changes. Representative Birch said he would support an amendment requiring hearings officers to "shall" issue subpoenas under standards similar to those for investigative subpoenas, rather than leaving issuance discretionary. Lynn said he would accept language making issuance mandatory when certain materiality and good-faith standards were met.

No vote was taken; the bill remained before the committee at the close of the hearing. Supporters said the subpoena tool would be used sparingly and only in limited circumstances; opponents asked for more protections for credential holders, clearer limits on scope, and procedural safeguards for student privacy.