House committee advances amended bullying, cyberbullying bill after contentious hearing

Concord — The House Education Policy Committee voted 10–8 on Nov. 5 to advance a non‑germane amendment to HB 131, legislation that modifies the state—ullying and cyberbullying statutes to add retaliation protections, new reporting and notification requirements, and mandated follow‑up conferences involving parents and school staff.

Representative Glenn Cordelli, the bill—hair and sponsor, told the committee the amendment is intended "to address some of the things we learned in the House and Senate last year to improve communication, make sure that everybody is aware of process and procedures and policies, and also to address incidences of retaliation that might occur." The amendment draws on language from last year's SB 210 and other measures the committee has considered.

Supporters said the measure would close gaps in how districts notify families, investigate across districts in cross‑jurisdiction cyberbullying incidents, and make clear that staff (including bus drivers) have reporting responsibilities. The amendment requires notification to parents within 48 hours after a reported incident and adds language that school districts must take measures to "ensure the safety of the student who has been bullied and to prevent further acts of bullying." It also requires schools to document policies and report on integration into curriculum by a new statutory date included in the amendment.

But the bill prompted broad opposition from civil‑legal advocates, school boards and disability advocates, who said parts of the draft are poorly defined and could create unintended legal and practical problems. "I am testifying in opposition to this amendment, in large part because of the procedure in which it is going before you," said Michelle Wangaran, an attorney with New Hampshire Legal Assistance, citing short notice to stakeholders and several undefined terms, including "retaliation." Wangaran also warned parts of the notification language could collide with federal privacy rules under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

Witnesses from New Futures, the Disability Rights Center of New Hampshire and the New Hampshire School Boards Association argued the amendment's requirement that any student who "admits to or is found to have engaged in" certain conduct "shall be subject to disciplinary action" removes local discretion and could make mandatory exclusionary discipline more likely—an approach they say is counterproductive and could especially harm students with disabilities. Emma Savini of New Futures highlighted research supporting Multi‑Tiered Systems of Support for Behavioral Health (MTSSB) as an evidence‑based prevention framework that she said reduced bullying where implemented.

A number of members also pressed the sponsor on substantive drafting details. Representative Murray asked whether the bill would reach conduct by students who attend private or parochial schools at public events; the sponsor said public‑school discipline laws apply to public and charter schools and that private schools have their own policies. Representative Murray and others also raised questions about legal thresholds: the amendment maintains a revision made last session that changes the statutory standard referenced for civil claims (members asked whether changing "gross negligence" to a lower negligence standard had been vetted with judiciary counsel because of potential litigation implications).

Representative Selig and others asked whether the amendment narrows existing statutory language that recognizes bullying motivated by an imbalance of power tied to a pupil—haracteristic or association with another pupil; sponsors said some language tracks SB 210 but critics said removing that imbalance language could reduce protections for victims targeted because of disability, race, sexual orientation or other protected traits.

The committee heard dozens of public comments, including parents who said current policy and practice sometimes fail victims and urged clearer reporting and enforcement; school‑system witnesses urged caution, better definitions and more investment in prevention and implementation supports.

Action: In executive session the committee moved HB 131 as amended and recorded a 10–8 vote in favor. The vote sheet recorded yes votes from Vice Chair Noble, Representatives Terry, Drei, Peternel, Litchfield, McDonald, Tenzah, Morse, Nato and Chair Cordelli; no votes were recorded from Representatives Cornell, Murray, Kratian, Hall, Rickey, Selig, Damon and Snodgrass.

What remains unclear: advocates and several lawmakers asked the Department of Education and the Legislature ttorney General—or clarifications about how the 48‑hour notification interacts with FERPA protections, how the proposed negligence standard would operate in practice, and how districts should manage mandatory conferences if parents cannot attend. Several witnesses urged that discipline remain discretionary and age‑ and disability‑appropriate rather than automatic.

The bill will move next through the legislative process with the version advanced by the committee. Lawmakers and stakeholders said they expect additional floor amendments and further debate as the bill proceeds.