Senators debate defining 'bad faith' in H.955; consider appeal path for facilitator decisions

During the H.955 conference committee’s line-by-line review, senators raised recurring concerns about repeated references to participants acting in 'good faith' and to 'bad faith' in the bill text. Several members said defining 'bad faith' in statute risks creating a prescriptive list that could be exploited; others said facilitator determinations carry consequence and should have an appeal route.

One member summarized the concern succinctly: defining a bad-faith participant in statute might "give the road map" for how to misbehave, a view that persuaded several colleagues to leave the term undefined and discretionary. At the same time, senators identified the relevant language in the legacy-debt section (page 79, section 74) and asked staff to propose an appeals option—possible recipients mentioned included the secretary or a review board—because the consequences of a bad-faith determination can be substantial.

The committee did not resolve the issue; instead it directed staff to return with suggested appeal mechanisms and with proposed language that balances facilitator discretion and procedural safeguards. Members reiterated that the concern is not primarily factual but procedural: how to give facilitators sufficient authority to manage meetings while protecting districts and participants from unilateral, high-stakes rulings.

Next steps: staff will draft appeal-language options and return them to the committee for consideration alongside the other pending deadlines on maps and budget timing.