At an executive session the State Senate Education Committee voted 3-2 to give an "ought to pass" recommendation to House Bill 292 as amended, creating a short-term revenue stabilization loan that would let financially distressed school districts borrow against future state adequacy payments.

The amendment package (Amendment 3,094, as modified by committee corrections) was introduced by Grama, who identified themself as deputy chief of staff to the New Hampshire Senate and summarized changes negotiated with the House to make the proposal statewide rather than singling out Claremont. "This is not new money. This is not more money," Grama said, describing the change as earlier access to already‑allocated adequacy funds for districts facing a severe cash‑flow problem.

Why it matters: supporters said the tool could keep school doors open while districts address short‑term cash problems and included accountability measures to limit misuse. The amendment would allow a district to access up to 75% of its own adequacy funding in a given year (the language was clarified from an earlier draft that could have been read to mean 75% of the total fund), cap participation in the revolving loan to three consecutive academic years, and set a sunset date for the whole program in June 2030. The package also requires extensive financial reporting and makes participating districts presumptively subject to performance and financial audits by the Joint Legislative Fiscal Committee unless that committee votes unanimously not to audit.

Key provisions and debate: the amendment would set a floor on the loan interest rate "no lower than the effective federal funds rate published by the Federal Reserve Bank," which Grama cited that morning as about 3.88 percent. Committee members split over that floor: one senator said the floor was higher than rates on other state revolving funds and said, "I...am not going to vote for this" unless the rate can be reduced; others argued a floor is necessary to avoid creating an easy bailout and to preserve fiscal discipline. Committee members also debated a provision that would allow parents in a district receiving a stabilization loan to apply for the Education Freedom Account (EFA) program despite prior enrollment caps; critics called that expansion an "exit" that could change mid‑year enrollment and complicate adequacy calculations.

Votes and next steps: the committee approved technical committee amendment changes unanimously (chair announced the changes 5‑0). The full amendment (Amendment 3,094 as corrected) passed on a recorded voice tally the committee stated as 3 in favor and 2 opposed. The committee then recorded an "ought to pass" on HB 292 as amended and indicated it will send the measure to the floor for further consideration.

What remains uncertain: the record shows the program would use existing adequacy funds rather than a new appropriation, but the precise operational mechanics—how interest income might be used (one member suggested interest could fund EFA costs), the department estimates that determine a district's adequacy amounts and the approval standards to be applied by the commissioner and treasurer—are left to subsequent rulemaking or floor amendment. The bill also makes the loan contingent on additional reporting requirements and subjects participating districts to audits; the fiscal committee's unanimous vote would be required to avoid an audit.

The committee completed several other procedural actions during the executive session, moving multiple bills to interim study or consent, and then voted to exit executive session.