Joint Education Committee debates two bids and ends the day without hiring a consultant

The joint House and Senate Education Committees heard two competing proposals for a statewide adequacy study and then moved into deliberations and votes. Representative Sherwood moved that any decision on hiring a consultant require a majority of both the House and Senate education committees; the motion passed, meaning any eventual award would need separate affirmative majorities in each chamber’s committee.

Representative Lauer then moved to accept the Schulz Associates proposal; Representative Elliott made a substitute motion to hire Augenblick, Polich & Associates and WestEd. After extended debate on whether the legislature should hire an outside consultant or rely on Bureau of Legislative Research staff and other in‑state resources, the committee proceeded to roll calls. The House roll call on the APA motion recorded 11 'aye' votes in favor, but the Senate roll call recorded only 4 'ayes' — short of the majority required of the Senate committee under the joint‑approval rule. Because both bodies did not record the needed concurrent majorities, the committee did not select a consultant during the session. The chair concluded, "we do not have a consultant."

Lawmakers debating the vote emphasized two competing logics: supporters of hiring an outside firm argued BLR lacks the staff time or capacity for a deep, multi‑strand adequacy study and that an outside vendor can deliver rigorous, benchmarked research and stakeholder engagement; opponents argued the state should save taxpayer funds, leverage existing BLR capacity or work with existing regional bodies and that the newly formed Schulz LLC raised concerns about team cohesion and prior statewide contracting experience.

The committee adjourned without awarding a contract; members said the committee would continue routine reviews and other business in the same manner it has followed in recent years unless the committees reconvene or adopt a different procurement path.