House Bill 10-54, a measure that would have required school boards to adopt policies authorizing volunteer or paid “chaplains” to serve in public schools, failed on a final vote of 18 ayes to 49 nays. The debate on the House floor included sustained arguments about parental rights, local control, qualifications and student safety.

Sponsor Representative Northrop, the bill’s floor manager, told colleagues the idea was aimed at increasing adult mentors in schools: “One of the things I want to talk about is some of my own personal experiences…this is the opportunity we have today is to send good people into the schools and provide many of these things.” He said the bill left implementation details to local school boards.

Opponents cited potential legal and practical problems. Representative Stevens argued the bill “takes away local control” and raised concerns about liability and mandatory reporting. Representative Heinemann opposed the measure on grounds that chaplains represent a specific religious perspective and that the bill sets no minimum professional standards, saying the legislation “opens the door to unqualified individuals serving in incredibly sensitive roles.” Representative Healy framed the issue as one of parental rights: “Families, not the government, should be responsible for their child's religious upbringing.”

Supporters said the bill was intentionally vague to preserve local discretion. Representative Manhart said the bill “lets the school districts decide what they want their policies to be” and noted the bill requires public vetting of names. Representative Schaeffbauer suggested the label “chaplain” created unnecessary controversy and described the role in practical terms: volunteer mentors who could run coat drives or help a student at lunch.

The House debated practical safeguards and policy design: several speakers urged local vetting, background checks and limits on when chaplains could meet with students. Sponsor Northrop suggested a model where a chaplain would be endorsed by a local church, come only during lunch hour, and be publicly listed by the school board.

With no amendment offering statewide professional standards or a parental-consent mechanism adopted on the floor, the bill failed to win a majority. The recorded vote on final passage was ayes 18, nays 49, excused 1.

The debate occurred during the second-reading floor consideration of House Bill 10-54 and included testimony referenced from prior committee hearings.

Looking ahead, supporters and opponents signaled continued interest in mentorship models but disagreed on whether state law or local policy is the right vehicle for such programs.