Members of the Utah Legislature Education Subcommittee questioned a funding request for student information system (SIS) reporting and sought clearer cost and savings estimates.

Representative White asked whether the request concerned the student information system; a staff member responded, “It is.” Representatives and board members then disputed whether the dollar figure under consideration was $38,000,000 or $35,000,000. Member Cindy Davis said, referring to a prior board motion, that “Member Davis made a motion to reduce that to $35,000,000 over 5 years. The board, I believe, voted unanimously, to do that to make it just an easy $7,000,000 per year as as we work to, get this figured out.” A later comment in the meeting noted the earlier claim of unanimity “may not have been unanimous,” and that would be clarified later.

Committee members pressed staff on how the proposal would affect local districts. A staff speaker said the goal is interoperability rather than a required single system: “we're trying to find that middle ground of saying, let's work together. Let's get our systems to work together so that we can get accurate information where it needs to be.” Members repeatedly emphasized preserving local control over SIS choices while improving reporting.

Representative Thompson, citing concerns from his local districts about administrative and reporting costs, asked for a concrete follow‑up: he requested the subcommittee be given a report estimating the administrative-cost reductions the investment would likely produce, rather than “a hope or a hypothetical.” The staff response was conciliatory: “we'll do what we can,” and Committee leadership agreed to have the requester temporarily step aside and return later with recommendations.

Where matters stand: the presentation discussed an SIS reporting request with at least two different dollar figures referenced in the meeting transcript (38,000,000 and 35,000,000). A prior motion to set the amount at $35,000,000 over five years (characterized in the meeting as $7,000,000 per year) was described by a participant as having been voted on, but later the speaker indicated the record on unanimity would be checked.

The committee did not take a final appropriations vote on the SIS proposal during this session; members directed staff to provide more concrete estimates tying the one‑time expense to likely ongoing administrative savings and to preserve local control in implementation.