Latest news with #GlennCordelli
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
House, Senate dispense with other priority bills
On a busy final day of regular legislative business, the New Hampshire House of Representatives and state Senate acted on some major bills including a permanent expansion of Education Freedom Accounts (EFA) along with a bell-to-bell ban on cellphone use in New Hampshire public schools. There were a few hiccups Thursday as the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to set aside a Senate-passed bill (SB 54) that would impose more penalties on motorists accused of driving drunk who refused to submit to a blood alcohol test. State Rep. Terry Roy, R-Deerfield, had convinced the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee he chairs to add to the bill a proposed mandate that K-12 schools offer at least one hour a year of firearms training. Without debate, the House voted 256-106 to table the bill, effectively killing it for the year. State Sen. Victoria Sullivan, R-Manchester, authored the EFA expansion (SB 295) that has now passed both the House and the Senate. Currently, EFAs are only available to families that make up to 350% of the federal poverty level, which is just above $100,000 for a family of four. The bill would eliminate the income limit but place an initial enrollment cap of 10,000 students; presently abut 5,400 are enrolled. The Senate still has to agree with changes that the House made to the bill on Thursday before passing it, 190-178. Sen. Glenn Cordelli, R-Tuftonboro, said EFAs have been very popular among middle class New Hampshire families. But Rep. Kate Murray, D-New Castle, said this expansion will cost the state at least $17 million more a year and she said the public at large doesn't like EFAs. 'Between the thousands of emails and online sign-ins against this bill, and warrant articles passed in communities throughout the state, the public has repeatedly expressed its strong disapproval of the voucher program,' Murray said. 'Instead of listening to the people we were elected to represent, Republicans voted to raise taxes to expand an unpopular program to that subsidizes wealthier households whose students are already in private schools.' Cellphone ban The House gave final approval to the cellphone ban (SB 206) that would direct all school boards to adopt policies that prevent student access throughout the school day. Earlier this year, the House and the Senate approved separate, more limiting bills that merely directed local officials to adopt the plans to deal with the issue. Gov. Kelly Ayotte urged the Senate to approve the House plan, which was similar to what the governor proposed in her budget last February. 'Screens are distraction for students and a barrier for teachers to do their jobs. A bell-to-bell ban on cellphones in the classroom will help kids focus on learning and let teachers do what they do best without being the phone police,' Ayotte said in a statement. 'I'm glad to see the House pass this today and thank them for taking action to help deliver a best-in-class education for all of New Hampshire's students.' In another mild surprise, the House voted 170-168 against legislation to move the state primary election from September to June in time for the 2026 election. Last March, the House had approved a different bill to make that change but to not have it begin until 2028. Rep. Matt Wilhelm, D-Manchester, said state and local election officials along with the candidates need more time to cope with the change. House Election Laws Committee Ross Berry, R-Manchester, had said there was still time to act, but the House narrowly disagreed. 'OK, I guess it's 2028,' Berry said in response. The state Senate has yet to approve the House-passed bill (HB 481) to move the primary for the 2028 election. klandrigan@
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Republicans advance bills to create book removal process in public schools
The House and Senate are moving to require New Hampshire schools to allow parents to challenge books and other materials they deem obscene, and to create formal appeals processes for weighing those challenges. (Getty Images) If a New Hampshire parent wants to remove a book from their school district for being too obscene, the process depends on their district. Some school boards have passed policies laying out an explicit mechanism to challenge books or other materials; others have much sparser language. This year, Republican lawmakers are seeking to make the process easier. The House and Senate are moving to require New Hampshire schools to allow parents to challenge books and other materials they deem obscene, and to create formal appeals processes for weighing those challenges. 'This bill is about materials that are harmful to minor children in schools and the ability for parents to object to them,' wrote Rep. Glenn Cordelli, a Tuftonboro Republican and the chairman of the House Education Policy and Administration Committee. But Democrats, public school advocates, and civil rights groups have strongly objected, arguing the new process could allow parents to target materials that tackle race and LGBTQ+ issues, and arguing that school districts should design their own policies. A representative from Penguin Random House, the book publisher, submitted written testimony to the committee in early March objecting to the bill. 'HB 324 is problematic due to overly broad language, redundancy with existing laws, and potential intimidation of educators and librarians that will negatively affect book and material selection in New Hampshire's schools and libraries,' wrote Skip Dye, the chairman of the publisher's Intellectual Freedom Taskforce. Dye continued: 'Ultimately, it will deprive young readers access to literature that is crucial for their intellectual and emotional development. And without non-discrimination provisions, the lowered standard in this bill may be weaponized against minority voices.' The legislation echoes efforts by Republicans in past years. This year, lawmakers appear more likely to succeed. House Bill 324 passed the House on March 26, 183-148, along a near party line vote, while the Senate passed Senate Bill 33 on March 30 with a 16-8 vote. But the chambers don't yet fully agree on key issues. The House-endorsed bill goes further than its Senate counterpart, including more appeals processes for parents and more potential penalties for schools. HB 324 would mandate that school boards pass policies that allow parents to complain that certain materials are harmful to minors and should be removed from the school district. In order to be 'harmful to minors,' the material must 'predominantly appeal to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors'; must depict or describe nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse; must be 'patently offensive to prevailing standards' of what is offense to minors; must lack 'serious' literary, scientific, medical, artistic, or political value; and must be inappropriate to the age group to which it is available, according to the bill. The material must meet all of those conditions in order to qualify as harmful, according to the bill. The material could include books, magazines, movies, pamphlets, recordings, photos, figures, statues, plays, dances, and any other visual presentation, web-based content, and live performance. Under the bill, school boards must pass policies that allow a parent or guardian to make a complaint alleging that a teaching material in that school district violates the law. At that point, the school's principal or a designee would have 14 calendar days to make a decision whether the material was in violation and whether it should be removed. If the principal decided the material did not violate the law, the parent could appeal the decision to the school board. SB 33 requires a similar complaint process. But HB 324 adds two additional provisions that have vexed opponents. First, if the school board also rules against the complaining parent, that parent can appeal a final time to the State Board of Education, HB 324 states. The State Board's decision is final. Second, under HB 324, school districts and individual teachers can face consequences if a material is decided to be prohibited and the school continues to provide that material anyway. School districts can be sued by parents; teachers and other staff can face disciplinary sanctions by the State Board of Education for violating the educator code of conduct. It is not clear which version of the legislation might pass both the House and Senate. The chambers could enter 'committee of conference' negotiations to find agreement in June. Barrett Christina, executive director of the New Hampshire School Boards Association, says the association objects to HB 324 for two reasons: the potential liability it creates for school boards who are sued by parents, and the ability for the state board to override the school board's authority over the materials. 'We think that the local school board should have the authority to determine what's in their local libraries,' Christina said. He added: 'The primary reason why we don't think an appeal to the State Board of Education is appropriate is that it leaves voters without any local recourse. If the local school board chooses to keep a book in the library and the voters don't like that decision, they can vote for new school board members at the next election.' Since 2004, the School Boards Association has had a model policy it has recommended that schools adopt that covers challenges to materials in school. And Christina says he understands the desire to standardize the process to reduce confusion, especially as book challenges have become more frequent in the past five years. But to Christina, any policy passed by the Legislature should meet two criteria: There should be well-defined deadlines for parents and school officials, and there should be clear definitions for what type of material violates the statute. HB 324 doesn't meet those criteria, he argued. Absent that clarity, the law could prompt school districts to agree to move more books than they should, he said. 'Nobody wants to be sued and nobody wants to subject themselves to civil penalties,' Christina said. 'So the potential is that it may create a chilling effect with respect to what books local school boards decide to keep in their libraries.' Speaking from the floor, Cordelli argued the state board should be included in the process. 'HB 324 establishes a minimum process for which parents can bring what they consider inappropriate materials to their principal and the school board, and yes, if necessary, to the state board,' he said. 'Because we have in statute a duty of the state board to hear complaints from parents.' Cordelli added: 'This is not banning of books. It is about making sure that our children — your children — have books that are age-appropriate.'
