Recently,  the New Hampshire Senate voted down SB 532, SB 533, and SB 576. Supporters, like me, believe these bills as necessary oversight measures. Opponents described them as political attacks. Simply not the case. But here is the real question I have: When did accountability become an attack?

Each of these bills sought to introduce greater transparency, reporting, or structural oversight into publicly funded education programs. None eliminated a program. None defunded services. None restricted participation. These pieces of legislation simply asked for monitoring, disclosure, performance review, and regular legislative engagement. That is not sabotage. That is governance.

In New Hampshire, we do not hesitate to attach accountability requirements to other publicly funded programs. The University System of New Hampshire undergoes annual audits and performance reviews. The Medicaid program operates under federal compliance audits and reporting standards. The Department of Transportation is subject to procurement transparency, competitive bidding laws, and public reporting. The New Hampshire Retirement System must meet actuarial standards and disclose funded ratios.

Even small nonprofit grantees receiving state contracts must document outcomes, maintain compliance, and submit to review.

I do not call that an attack. I call it stewardship.

Yet when accountability is proposed for Education Freedom Accounts, funded with taxpayer dollars, it suddenly becomes controversial.

Why?

If a program is working, transparency strengthens it. If a program is expanding, oversight ensures sustainability. If public dollars are involved, reporting protects both taxpayers and beneficiaries.

Accountability is not a partisan tool. It is a basic expectation of public trust. The legislature set up the Education Freedom Accounts Oversight Committee to do this job, and it has not. In 2025, it only met twice at the very end of the year after pressure to complete the required report.

The argument against these bills was that they were unnecessary or burdensome. But regular reporting, public meetings, measurable standards, and review mechanisms are standard practice across state government. Education programs should not be the lone exception.

In fact, the larger and more visible a publicly funded initiative becomes, the more important transparency becomes. Not to undermine it, but to reinforce legitimacy. When oversight is rejected outright, it raises a different question: What is the fear? Public confidence grows, it strengthens, when programs withstand scrutiny. It weakens when oversight is treated as hostility.

New Hampshire prides itself on fiscal discipline and local engagement. That culture depends on transparency. It depends on measurable outcomes. It depends on elected officials being able to answer the question: How are taxpayer dollars performing?

The defeat of SB 532, SB 533, and SB 576 sends an unfortunate message — that asking for structured accountability is somehow adversarial. It is not. Accountability is not an attack. It is the foundation of responsible government. Because in the end, transparency protects everyone — taxpayers, students, and the institutions themselves.

State Sen. Suzanne Prentiss, D-Lebanon, represents District 5 in the New Hampshire Senate.