HB3372

The introduced bill also named public and private higher-education institutions as prohibited outside-service recipients. The House committee substitute removed that category. That removal does not exempt an institution that independently fits another covered category. Text versions.

Metcalf’s adopted House amendment removed a prohibition on performing personal services themselves, leaving the restriction focused on receiving a financial benefit for those services. Thus, the final provision is not the original blanket bar on both paid and unpaid service. Other conflict-of-interest rules are not displaced by that change. House amendment.

In the Senate, Middleton’s adopted amendment added the written-contract/board-approval exception and public-disclosure provision, while excluding specified senior officials from that exception. Menéndez’s proposal to extend the administrator definition and related language to open-enrollment charter schools was withdrawn; it must not be treated as enacted coverage of charter administrators. Amendment index; adopted Senate F1; withdrawn F2.

The chambers then used a conference committee. The final compromise retained the Senate exception but expressly removed district trustees from the definition of administrator and clarified that the exception applies to category (2) or (3). Both chambers adopted the report on May 31. The conference text matches the enrolled law. Conference report and side-by-side comparison.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Students, families and districts could benefit from fewer financial conflicts between administrators’ public duties and paid outside work. Disclosure and board findings give oversight of permitted arrangements. The law does not establish that every outside engagement was harmful or that the restrictions produce a measurable improvement in schools.

Administrators may lose outside earning opportunities or face contract-review obligations; businesses and other school systems may have fewer eligible consultants. District boards must review qualifying proposed contracts. The conference fiscal note anticipated no significant state or local fiscal impact, assuming state costs could be absorbed with existing resources. It did not quantify lost private earnings or predict civil-penalty collections. Final fiscal note.

Review boundary: This briefing explains the enacted categories and exceptions, not whether a particular engagement, reimbursement or individual employee falls within them. It does not extend the withdrawn charter-administrator proposal or invent an enforcement procedure absent from the act.