Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs bill to expand school financial reporting as auditors warn of capacity constraints
Summary
The House Education Funding Committee heard Senate Bill 586, which would require more detailed, searchable financial reports from school districts and SAUs and give the Department of Education new authority to verify completeness. Auditors and DOE staff warned a six‑month audited deadline and an automatic withholding of state funds would be impractical without rulemaking, more staff and a longer compliance window.
The House Education Funding Committee on Tuesday considered Senate Bill 586, a proposal to expand what schools must report about finances and to tighten compliance deadlines.
Representative Dan Magcguire, introducing the measure for an absent sponsor, said the bill shifts a vague ‘‘financial report’’ requirement into a more detailed submission that would include payroll and staffing data, itemized assets and liabilities and contracts. "It's putting a lot more detail into what needs to be reported," Magcguire said, and his amendment would also add school administrative units (SAUs) as required reporters and require the reports be submitted in a searchable electronic format.
Magcguire drew attention to a provision in the bill that would authorize the commissioner to withhold state funding from noncompliant entities. "The commissioner shall withhold any and all state funding allocated to any non‑compliant city, school district, charter school, etc.," he read, and members pushed back on whether that penalty should be automatic or better targeted.
Local auditors and business officers told the committee the larger challenge is timing and statewide audit capacity. Michael Campo, managing partner at Plaza & Sanderson, testified that clearer deadlines are useful but that the proposed six‑month deadline to produce audited financial statements is unrealistic for many districts given the limited number of firms doing governmental audits. "My recommendation to this committee would be to consider a 9‑month window," Campo said, explaining that firms often need more time for fieldwork, subsequent‑event inquiries, legal confirmations and federal compliance testing.
Dr. Nate Green, a division director at the New Hampshire Department of Education, urged the committee to separate statutory changes to the DOE25 reporting used for tax‑rate setting from any new requirement to collect audited statements. DOE officials said DOE25 submissions—currently due in early September—serve different statutory purposes and traditionally go to the Department of Revenue Administration. "If we were to adhere to the six‑month deadline," Green told the committee, "about 7% of districts would be able to get those in within that six‑month timeline." He recommended a 12– to 18‑month timetable if the committee requires audit submissions to DOE and noted DOE would need additional staff to collect and analyze audits.
Members and witnesses discussed other drafting fixes: clarifying whether the six‑month window is measured from fiscal‑year end, specifying which state funds could be withheld and aligning any new audit language with existing statute sections that already require financial reporting. Several members urged the committee to clarify in statute or rule whether the Department of Education or the State Board will have rulemaking authority over any new formula or enforcement steps.
The committee did not vote. Members scheduled additional work‑session time to reconcile DOE25 requirements, statutory cross‑references and realistic compliance timelines before deciding whether to advance the bill.
