Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conference committee advances H.955 language; maps, CTEs and 'bad faith' procedure flagged for follow-up
Summary
Senate H.955 conference committee completed a page-by-page review of the education bill, accepting much of the Senate language while flagging mapping, school-construction funding timing, inclusion of independently governed career and technical education centers, and whether to define 'bad faith' for later deliberation.
The Senate H.955 conference committee reconvened after a break and moved through the bill in a fast, page-by-page review, accepting most of the Senate’s language while flagging several items that need follow-up.
Committee leaders agreed to let legislative counsel track and align the House and Senate side-by-side language. Members welcomed the addition of independently governed career and technical education (CTE) centers to eligibility and mapping language, saying it recognizes the centers’ separate governance structures. They also noted several mapping choices—especially for island service areas such as Grand Isle and Milton—were driven by bridge locations and population centers, not only lines on a map.
The panel raised process questions about member and facilitator roles in operational decisions (for example, membership adjustments and whether some implementation details should be left to CESA/CISA or facilitators). On section 2A, senators questioned whether newly formed CISA entities could reasonably be expected to run multiple services (professional development, curriculum, transportation, facilities) in a short initial period; the bill’s language includes approvals and an explicit out if an entity is not yet ready to assume all duties.
Members spent substantial time on school merger provisions and protections for isolated eligible districts, discussing moratorium timing tied to the foundation formula so districts know their financial positions before deciding to merge. The committee suggested several date alignments (2030 and a later reference to 2035) and agreed contingency language needs more work.
On school construction and legacy debt, senators praised tighter reporting and timeline language but asked staff to produce a numbers comparison to ensure funding lines up and avoid loopholes. The group also discussed how to present estimated state aid in bond materials so voters understand a likely aid range before a bond vote, noting historical practice of knowing likely state aid prior to voting.
A recurring procedural issue was the bill’s repeated references to acting in 'good faith' and the term 'bad faith.' Several members warned against statutorily defining 'bad faith,' arguing that a statutory definition could inadvertently provide guidance on how to act badly; others said facilitator determinations of bad faith may need an appeal path given the stakes. The committee identified the 'bad faith' language in the legacy debt section (page 79, section 74) and asked staff to propose appeal options, including an appeal to a secretary or board.
The committee deferred detailed map work to the next meeting and noted staff support from John Adams’ office and CESA/CISA staff to reconcile differences between Senate and CESA maps. Members agreed to return early the following day to try to close maps and school-construction items and to consider aligning any Secretary of State report dates with the governor’s recommended budget so hard numbers and budget recommendations synchronize.
The conference committee concluded by scheduling map work for the next day and confirming staff will prepare requested numerical and dates comparisons for pending sections.
