Transcript Highlights:

• This includes the IMR process.
• This includes the IMR process.
• It's incredibly helpful for us to hear, and we're so sorry for what you've experienced. what we're hearing
• Again, this is a hearing entitled Kaiser Permanente... ...a hearing entitled Kaiser Permanente's behavioral
• That concludes public comment and this hearing.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee held an informational hearing on Kaiser Permanente’s behavioral health care system, focusing on Department of Managed Health Care enforcement actions, Kaiser’s corrective action work plan, and testimony from patients, advocates, and union representatives. DMHC officials reviewed a long history of complaints, surveys, fines, and settlements involving Kaiser’s access to behavioral health services, including deficiencies found in 2012 and 2016, a 2022 non-routine survey, and a 2023 settlement that imposed a $50 million penalty and required $150 million in community investments over five years. DMHC said it continues to monitor Kaiser through quarterly meetings, complaint review, follow-up surveys, and a reimbursement process for members who could not obtain timely in-network care. Committee members pressed DMHC on what “timely access” and continuity of care mean in practice, how virtual care and group therapy fit into the standards, and what triggers a non-routine survey. DMHC said initial behavioral health appointments generally should not take more than two weeks, urgent care should be within days, and follow-up care within 10 days, with out-of-network care required when plans cannot meet standards. Officials also said Kaiser’s initial corrective action work plan lacked detail, but the revised plan was accepted and will be tracked through quarterly reporting and possible additional enforcement if Kaiser fails to comply. The second panel featured testimony from a Kaiser enrollee, a behavioral health policy expert, a Kaiser therapist, and the NUHW president. The enrollee described serious delays and inadequate treatment for his daughter after a suicide attempt, while the therapist and union leader said Kaiser’s behavioral health system is understaffed, relies too heavily on short appointments, group therapy, and webinars, and treats behavioral health as less important than medical-surgical care. They argued Kaiser’s one-appointment-at-a-time scheduling rule and limited treatment time violate parity requirements and harm continuity of care. Several members criticized Kaiser for not appearing at the hearing and said the testimony underscored the need for stronger oversight, clearer metrics, and faster remedies for patients.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this mimics that process.
• ... we're hearing.
• So how is that due process?
• They violate due process by letting designations happen in shadows without fair hearings or transparency
• Unfortunately, we hear some good bills, we hear some bad bills.

Summary: The committee first considered CS/SB 536, which updates Florida’s criminal gang statutes to reflect modern gang recruitment and communication methods, including social media and encrypted messaging. Senator Martin said the bill does not criminalize gang membership, but clarifies definitions used for gang-related enhancements and law enforcement investigations. Members raised concerns about the meaning of “observed in the company” of gang members and possible impacts on businesses and bikers; Martin said the language was not intended to reach ordinary business customers and that the bill still requires other criteria. The committee adopted the amendment and reported the bill favorably after debate, with some members supporting it and others warning it was still too broad. The committee also approved CS/SB 762, allowing cross-jurisdictional assignment of conflict capital cases with cost and reporting requirements, after an amendment emphasizing judicial economy and geographic proximity; the bill was described as a cost-saving measure and was reported favorably. CS/SB 1742, creating a new offense for indecent exposure or sexual acts directed at minors under 16, was amended to align with the House version and to cover observing a child for sexual gratification, then reported favorably. CS/SB 1750, increasing penalties and mandatory minimums for serious sex crimes and child sexual abuse material offenses, was amended to restore some current-law provisions and limit reclassification to offenders who were 18 or older at the time of the offense, then reported favorably. The committee also approved CS/SB 1582 on statewide data sharing for secondhand dealer and pawnbroker transactions, along with its companion public-records bill SB 1792, both described as theft-prevention and law-enforcement tools with confidentiality protections and stakeholder support. CS/SB 500, providing FDLE protective security for major-party nominees for statewide constitutional offices, was also reported favorably after a technical amendment. The longest and most contentious discussion was on CS/SB 1632, which would create a process for Florida to designate foreign and domestic terrorist organizations, restrict courts from enforcing foreign or religious law when it conflicts with state or federal law, and bar public funds from supporting designated organizations. Senator Graal said the bill targets conduct, not belief, and creates due-process protections through written findings, public notice, cabinet action, and judicial review. Senator Smith and Senator Polsky repeatedly questioned whether the bill’s use of terms like “promotion” could chill protected speech, academic debate, protest activity, or legal representation, and whether the designation process could be used politically or against religious and advocacy groups. Graal said promotion was meant to cover support for illegal acts, not mere disagreement or academic speech, and said she was open to clarifying language. Numerous speakers opposed the bill, arguing it was vague, unconstitutional, and likely to be used against Muslim communities, students, nonprofits, and dissenting political speech; a few supporters argued it was needed for public safety and to prevent state support for terrorism. The committee did not take a final vote on CS/SB 1632 in the portion provided, and the transcript ends during public testimony on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• As you came into the hearing.
• Originally the bill didn't have a process or a tier 1 or tier 2 advice process to approve Kohler relinquishment
• We sat through a three-hour hearing on this.
• That the process is laid out.
• I'll leave the hearing open for ten minutes.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We are now calling this hearing to order.
• The important work of this committee today, with this hearing, we will be hearing testimony on 11 House
• Thank you for hearing all this testimony. Are we having fun yet? Yes. Oh, I'm glad to hear it.
• We can't hear you. We can hear you. And, Susie, you can't give us written testimony.
• I make a motion to end the public hearing. Do I hear a second? Second.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing of the Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs was opened by Chair Joe McGonagle and Vice Chair Senator Mike Rush, who noted that Chair John Velis was deployed with the Massachusetts National Guard. The chairs explained the hybrid format, three-minute testimony limit, live streaming, and filing deadlines, and said the committee would hear 11 House bills and eight Senate bills dealing with federal and overseas issues. Much of the hearing centered on competing resolutions about Article 5 constitutional conventions, along with related resolutions on D.C. statehood, child labor, Citizens United, and Cambodia. Supporters of H. 4692 and S. 284, a joint resolution to rescind all prior Massachusetts Article 5 convention applications, argued that old resolutions from the 1930s and 1970s could be used to count Massachusetts toward the 34-state threshold for calling a federal constitutional convention. Testifiers from Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, the ACLU, Reproductive Equity Now, labor groups, and others warned that a convention would have no clear rules, could not be reliably limited to specific topics, and could put civil rights, reproductive rights, labor protections, and other constitutional protections at risk. Several speakers also cited a recent federal lawsuit and said the safest course was to remove outdated applications from the books. A large opposing panel testified in support of H. 3888, a resolution calling for a Convention of States to propose amendments limiting federal power, imposing fiscal restraints, and establishing term limits. Supporters argued that Article 5 provides a lawful way to address federal overreach, debt, and congressional stagnation, and said the process would be limited by state applications and ratification by 38 states. Some committee members and witnesses raised concerns about a runaway convention, broad language in the resolution, and whether Congress could or should set rules for such a convention. Representative Gentile also testified in support of several related resolutions on overturning Citizens United, D.C. statehood, and the child labor amendment, while Representative Howard and Representative Tongue supported a Cambodia resolution condemning political oppression and urging free and fair elections. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The historic review process is necessary, but it does add time to the development process, so this bill
• review proc to the development process review proc to the development process so<00:13:52.880>
• We don't think it meets due process requirements. It doesn't lay out a process.
• We don't think it meets due process requirements. It doesn't lay out a process.
• We support this process.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several housing, land use, and preservation bills. HB 1008 HD2 would require the Department of Land and Natural Resources to complete historic preservation determinations for state affordable housing projects within 90 days and create sensitivity-based review pathways. HHFDC, DLNR’s State Historic Preservation Division, and written testimony from DBEDT supported the bill as an expedited process for projects unlikely to affect significant historic resources. Members asked how the bill would define significant versus non-significant historic properties, how it would interact with Kapakai analysis, and whether burial councils had been consulted; SHPD said the bill would not replace Kapakai review and that burial councils had not been included. Written support also came from OHA, Hawaii Realtors, and the Maui Chamber of Commerce. HB 1093 would clarify the Hawaii Public Housing Authority’s powers relating to housing projects. HPHA supported the measure, saying it would align definitions with prior law and help deconcentrate poverty by allowing mixed-income rebuilding. The director also said the bill was increasingly urgent because of reported federal HUD priorities that could affect public housing and Section 8 funding. HB 1096 HD1 would repeal state low-income housing preferences for disabled veterans and spouses of deceased veterans, with HPHA saying federal veteran programs such as VASH are a better mechanism and that the state preference has not been used in years. HB 1411 would allow HHFDC projects to give sale or lease preferences to applicants who live or work within five miles of a project; HHFDC and the Hawaii Chapter of NAIOP supported it as a way to keep residents connected to their communities, while members raised constitutional concerns about broader local-preference policies. The committee also heard HB 367 HD1, which would create county permit exemptions for certain agricultural and maintenance activities. Written testimony included opposition from the Department of Planning and Permitting and support from the Hawaii Farm Bureau, Grassroot Institute, and others. A public testifier opposed the bill, arguing that permit exemptions could worsen safety and compliance problems. Finally, HB 826 HD1 would allow county planning commissions, by special permit, to authorize residential housing in agricultural districts for agricultural workforce housing, long-term rental, or fee simple ownership under certain conditions. HHFDC supported it as a faster alternative to lengthy state land-use redistricting, but the Department of Agriculture, Land Use Commission, and Office of Planning and Sustainable Development raised concerns about food production impacts, due process, service provision, jurisdictional conflicts, and the use of special permits for what could amount to district boundary changes. Public testimony was mixed, with some support and some opposition. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• hearing.
• There is a process.
• hearing so that they understand what the process looks like before they have to come in and participate
• in that hearing.
• And I, through the course of the hearing, determined that the process ADOA had been using for, I believe

Bills: SB1285, SB1289, SB1326, SB1328, SB1329, SB1330, SB1392, SB1402, SB1425, SCR1013, SCR1014

Keywords: sentencing, correctional facilities, multiple sentences, death penalty, aggravating circumstances, juvenile offenses, class 2 felony, foreign donations, election administration, certification, Arizona Revised Statutes, transparency, public disclosure, victims' rights, attorney fees, government accountability, right to counsel, legal representation, parents' rights, family law

Summary: The committee approved the minutes and then took up several election, family court, and criminal justice bills. SB 1425, the “big bill,” would move Arizona’s 2026 primary election date earlier and adjust related election administration timelines; the chair’s amendment moved the primary to July 21 and removed the shortened curing/ID deadlines. County officials testified in support, explaining the timing changes and the need to align dates, and the committee adopted the amendment and gave the bill a do-pass recommendation. SB 1289, dealing with certifications for entities providing money or resources for election administration and foreign funding disclosures, also received a do-pass recommendation after testimony from supporters arguing it would block foreign influence in election administration and ballot issue spending. The committee later heard SCR 1013, a related resolution that would more directly prohibit foreign-source money for election administration and ballot measures; the sponsor and supporters said it was similar to SB 1289 but broader, and testimony focused on foreign money flowing through nonprofit networks. The committee then considered SB 1326, which would allow courts to award attorney fees and costs to victims when a party violates or worsens a victim’s rights. A victim’s attorney testified that the bill would provide needed accountability and guidance, while opponents argued the term “exacerbates” was vague and that existing remedies already exist. The committee approved SB 1326 on a 4-3 vote. SB 1402, requiring courts to impose a fee on certain probationers to cover electronic monitoring costs, drew support from the sponsor and advocates who said offenders should pay for monitoring, and opposition from defense attorneys who warned it could burden indigent probationers and divert money from treatment; it also received a 4-3 do-pass recommendation. The most extensive debate was on SB 1330, which would allow a parent in certain custody cases to request a jury trial on parenting time or legal decision-making. Supporters, including several parents, described costly and traumatic family court experiences and argued a jury would provide a neutral check on judges and court-appointed professionals. County and court representatives opposed the bill, saying family cases require specialized judicial expertise, jury trials would delay urgent matters, increase costs, and risk confidentiality. Despite those concerns, the committee adopted the bill on a 4-3 vote. The committee also approved SB 1328, which declares state policy favoring parental rights and a child’s equal access to both co-parents, after adopting an amendment adding legislative intent language. Finally, SB 1329, which would let parents sue court-appointed professionals who deviate from professional ethics or standards in custody matters, passed 4-3 after testimony from parents and advocates who said court appointees lack accountability, while opponents said existing malpractice and licensing remedies already address misconduct.

Transcript Highlights:

• that's there now within the permitting process, through public hearings and other opportunities to comment
• I couldn't hear you. Good thing about not being able to hear. I can't even hear that.
• It's good to hear that that process is in place. I thank y'all for y'all's testimony.
• We Yes We Yes We Yes We Yes We Yes We Yes We Yes We Yes It's good to hear that that process is in place
• You want to see a picture-perfect public hearing and comment period process? Go look at that.

Summary: The committee took up public comment on a package of similar local-option bills related to carbon capture and sequestration, including House Bills 5, 6, 497, 498, 501, and 504. The bills would let parishes, or in some cases specific parishes such as Rapides and Livingston, decide by local vote whether Class VI wells, CO2 sequestration, and related pipeline infrastructure could be permitted. The chair grouped the bills together for testimony, adopted a three-minute public comment rule, and noted that the bills were not yet under consideration for a vote during the public-comment portion. Supporters, including Speaker Pro Tem Mike Johnson, parish officials, local activists, and residents, argued that communities affected by carbon capture projects should have a direct voice through local option elections. They said the bills were about self-determination, local control, and allowing residents to decide whether the risks are worth the benefits. Several speakers said their parishes had passed resolutions opposing carbon capture or asking for local choice, while others emphasized concerns about eminent domain, aquifer protection, lack of public understanding, and the need for more information about project impacts and financial benefits. Some supporters also said a local vote would force industry to engage more directly with communities and could improve transparency. Opponents, including representatives of the Department of Conservation and Energy, the Louisiana Chemistry Association, the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, and the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, warned that the bills would create uncertainty, undermine Louisiana’s primacy over Class VI permitting, and invite litigation under federal preemption and the Supremacy Clause. They said the state already has a strict permitting process with public input and technical review, and that allowing parish-by-parish approval could delay or block billions of dollars in investment, jobs, and export-related projects. The department testified that if the state adopted a local-option referendum system, EPA could determine Louisiana was not implementing the program consistently and could move to remove primacy. No committee vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, there are many processes in place for accountability, not only through the construction process,
• I'm ready to hear from you.
• Us in delays in the process.
• I hear, you know, I hear and I Obviously, support more access in rural areas where it's challenging,
• Whether it's this program, last hearing's program, or a program from two hearings ago, we keep hearing

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing none, hearing none. Seeing none, hearing none, Emily, want to call the roll. Senator Klein.
• What does the application process look like?
• I think it's very narrowed down to the Ag Committee folks who hear it, and then they hear it.
• And to do that, you need people that are in at the beginning of the process and at the end of that process
• It's just all part of the budget process.

Summary: The committee met to organize upcoming legislative session arrangements and staffing, and to review several rule and security-related items. It first approved a Joint Rule 211 change, recommended by the Employee Benefits Committee, that clarifies the deadline and statutory references for introducing health insurance mandate bills so required cost-benefit materials can be completed in time. Members noted the change would streamline the process, though it would not solve all timing and mandate-determination issues. The committee then discussed a draft bill on confidentiality protections for certain public officials and candidates, but members raised concerns about the statute’s complexity, the practical difficulty of administering it, and whether it would meaningfully improve safety; no action was taken and the topic was set aside for further discussion. The committee received an update on the new NCSL Legislator Security Fund. Staff explained that North Dakota is in process to apply for grant funding that could reimburse up to about $200 per legislator for personal security-related expenses such as home cameras, locks, lighting, or monitoring services, with reimbursement handled through Legislative Council and subject to Emergency Commission approval. Members asked about eligible expenses, timing, and whether new legislators would be included, and staff said the program would likely cover current legislators only for this round. The committee also approved the 2027 joint session schedule for the State of the State, tribal-state message, and State of the Judiciary on January 5, with the tribal and judiciary addresses in the morning and the governor’s address later in the day. The committee next approved the statutory reporting schedule for the Commerce Commissioner and agricultural commodity groups, setting the Commerce report for January 13, 2027, and the agriculture reports and pesticide container disposal update for January 14, 2027. Members questioned the usefulness of some of these recurring reports, but agreed to follow the existing statutory requirements. The largest discussion centered on Legislative Council staffing for the 2027 session: the committee approved reducing session staff to 36 Senate and 41 House employees, eliminating procedural clerk positions in standing committees in favor of permanent policy analysts, while retaining quality assurance clerks and adding a House parking lot attendant. It also approved a 3% salary increase for those staff positions, matching the increase given to state employees. Finally, the committee reviewed a revised organizational session and new legislator training agenda. Staff proposed moving some orientation content into a separate pre-session training day for new legislators on November 30, including laptop setup, mock committee and floor sessions, parliamentary procedure, and HR/benefits training, while adding more security and budgeting instruction. Members strongly supported earlier and more practical training, including follow-up reinforcement during the first week of session, and suggested using experienced or term-limited former legislators as mentors. Staff also described efforts to expand training materials into podcasts, flowcharts, and other formats, and Legislative Council leadership outlined the office’s remaining vacancies and a proposed expansion of policy analysts, program evaluators, legal staff, and training support to better serve the legislature and improve oversight of state programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• So you hear numbers of 23, you hear numbers of 29, but you don't ever hear the number 37 too often, but
• So you hear a lot of bigger numbers.
• Now sometimes you'll hear when we talk about budget hearings, you'll hear them talk about the first reading
• It must have a budget hearing notice, which is a date, time, and location of a budget hearing with no
• So they're not part of the millage-setting process. They are a completely different process.

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes met for an educational session focused on how Florida funds public schools and how property taxes are assessed and levied. Dr. Jim Zengali of the Department of Revenue explained the FEFP school funding formula, noting that it is built on weighted student counts, a base student allocation, and programmatic add-ons such as transportation, exceptional student education, school safety, and mental health. He said school funding is roughly split between state general revenue and local property taxes through required local effort, with additional discretionary and capital outlay millages contributing to total school funding. He also described the Department of Revenue’s role in certifying property rolls at fair market value and reviewing them for substantial compliance, including the so-called “nuclear option” if a roll is not approved. Members asked about trends in millage rates, county-by-county funding differences, the effect of growth and enrollment changes, and how property appraisals are reviewed. Zengali said aggregate millage for school funding has declined over the last decade while revenues have still increased, and he agreed to provide additional data on county trends, parcel strata, student growth, and enrollment impacts. He also clarified that school funding is equalized so students receive similar resources regardless of county wealth, and that federal funding plays only a small role in the FEFP. Amy Baker of the Joint Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research then discussed existing homestead benefits. She said about half of Florida’s parcels are homestead properties, most fall in the $250,000 to $500,000 value range, and many seniors without mortgages pay property taxes in lump sums rather than through escrow. Baker explained that Florida’s homestead tax burden is middle-of-the-pack nationally and that the main benefits are Save Our Homes and portability on the differential side, plus the $25,000 homestead exemption and related exemptions on the exemption side. She said these benefits reduce taxable value substantially, with homestead properties receiving a large share of the reductions, and noted that the committee requested follow-up data on exemption usage, portability timing, senior exemptions, and county-level patterns. The final presentation, by Lizette Kelly of the Department of Revenue, covered millage rates and the TRIM process. She reviewed the history of truth-in-millage notices, required taxpayer mailings, public hearing notices, and later changes that tied local millage resets to rollback and majority-vote rates. Kelly explained the difference between proposed and adopted millage, the rollback rate, and the majority-vote rate, and described how taxing authorities include counties, cities, special districts, and MSTUs. She also outlined how county taxable value is calculated from just value through assessment differentials and exemptions, and how certain exemptions, such as the additional senior exemption, apply only to the taxing authority that adopted them. No votes were taken during the meeting, but members requested several follow-up data reports for later discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• I can't hear you. Nick Sheepak for the record, can you hear me? Is your light on? Yeah. Oh, okay.
• That concludes our hearing on AB 320. I will close that hearing.
• Section 7 has the same updates as seen in Section 3 regarding the process of notification, hearing requests
• Section 7 has the same updates as seen in Section 3 regarding the process of notification, hearing requests
• , and forfeiture of the animal. and section ...process of notification, hearing requests, and forfeiture

Keywords: 909, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to this joint hearing on the future of the California State University, a joint oversight hearing
• in the process now.
• I completely hear you with that.
• in the budget process.
• I'm going to assume we may have a follow-up hearing in the budget process on this to make sure that the

Summary: The joint Assembly Higher Education and Budget Subcommittee hearing focused on the future of the California State University system, with opening remarks emphasizing CSU’s major role in California’s economy, workforce, and degree production. Chairs and members said the hearing was intended to inform 2026 budget decisions and to examine three main issues: declining enrollment at some campuses, cost controls and possible consolidation, and oversight of recent state investments at campuses such as Humboldt and Sonoma. The meeting was briefly delayed by microphone and sound problems before reconvening. The first panel featured CSU Academic Senate Chair Dr. Elizabeth Boyd and Cal State Student Association Vice President Katie Karam. Boyd urged the Legislature to protect academic freedom, strengthen faculty governance, provide stable ongoing funding, end unfunded mandates, support student food and housing security, fund flexible course schedules, improve transfer systems such as ASSIST, avoid over-centralizing academic programs, protect immigrant students, and expand intersegmental collaboration. Karam said students are feeling the effects of budget shortfalls through fewer course sections, reduced advising and services, longer time to degree, and tuition pressure, and she called for transparency, meaningful student involvement in budget decisions, and sustained state investment rather than cuts that harm the student experience. The second panel covered enrollment management and included CSU Chancellor’s Office and campus administrators from Chico State, Cal State L.A., and San Diego State. Dr. Delcy Perez said CSU Forward and the new systemwide enrollment plan are aimed at expanding access, aligning programs with workforce needs, and increasing resident enrollment; she reported systemwide enrollment gains and strong application numbers, including a direct-admissions pilot that expanded from Riverside to more campuses. Campus representatives described local recruitment and retention strategies, including early outreach to high school students, community college partnerships, guaranteed admission programs, and expanded advising and student support. San Diego State highlighted record enrollment and high demand, while Cal State L.A. described efforts to recover from impaction and rebuild enrollment. Members pressed CSU officials on the accuracy of enrollment data, the gap between funded targets and actual enrollment, and the system’s reallocation formula. CSU staff explained that campuses below target will see a 5% ongoing reallocation beginning in 2026-27, with one-time reserve funding also being directed to campuses that can grow, and that fiscal health reviews have been completed for 21 of 22 campuses. Legislators also asked about turnaround plans required by the budget act; CSU said those plans are being developed and will be shared in the spring after campus consultation. No formal votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we still have a committee process, and the committee process is there for a reason.
• And we still have a committee process, and the committee process is there for a reason.
• And we still have a committee process, and the committee process is there for a reason.
• And we still have a committee process, and the committee process is there for a reason.
• And we still have a committee process, and the committee process is there for a reason.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• that this process can be more than a single hearing.
• We're hearing from Ms.
• We're hearing from Ms.
• We also hear from D.D.
• I appreciate the hearing. It was a really great hearing. My name is Trent Murphy.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The joint oversight hearing focused on AB 988 implementation and suicide prevention in California Indian communities. Members and the chairs emphasized that 988 was intended to create a behavioral health crisis system with “someone to call, someone to come, and somewhere to go,” and then turned to the disproportionate suicide burden facing Native youth and the need for culturally responsive outreach and services. Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, the bill’s author, said the law has already saved lives but argued that key parts of the system—especially interoperability between 911 and 988, mobile crisis dispatch, and adequate funding—are not yet working as intended. The first panel of stakeholders and call center leaders largely said California’s 988 network is underfunded and not fully integrated. Speakers from the Steinberg Institute and 988 California said call, text, and chat demand has grown sharply, but staffing and funding have not kept pace, leaving text/chat answer rates far below the state’s goals and sending many contacts to out-of-state backup centers. They also said mobile crisis teams are not being dispatched through 988 statewide, and that the state’s current governance and funding structure is too fragmented. WellSpace Health and other providers described 988 as the “front door” to crisis care, urged more stable funding, and recommended broader use of the CCBHC model to support mobile crisis and behavioral health infrastructure. San Joaquin County offered a local success story, describing a countywide crisis continuum that links 988, mobile crisis, behavioral health access lines, and follow-up services through warm handoffs and coordinated outreach. County officials said the model has reduced reliance on emergency departments and involuntary holds, and they noted that local partnerships and repeated community meetings were key to implementation. Members asked about staffing, tribal outreach, and how to make the system more measurable and interoperable; panelists said staffing projections should be based on actual call volume and contact length, and that tribal-specific outreach has often depended on temporary grant funding. State officials from CalHHS and DHCS then described the five-year implementation plan, the roles of multiple agencies, and current performance data. They said California’s 988 system has handled more than 74,000 contacts in a recent month, with in-state answer rates of 87% for calls and lower rates for chats and texts, and that unanswered contacts are routed to backup centers. They highlighted training efforts, LGBTQ+ competency work after the end of the federal “Press 3” option, and efforts to improve reimbursement for mobile crisis services. No formal votes or committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• /c> um further process uh a hearing or um further process uh a hearing or mediation<00:41:50.000>
• , X-type of hearing, as the next step in the process.
• fairly unique process to us as well. fairly unique process to us as well.
• Because what I'm hearing might be a confusion in process where people are saying that they're seeing
• like really a great process. like really a great process.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to continue its review of recommendations for New Hampshire’s family court, with the chair emphasizing a collaborative approach and noting that the group would focus on the origins of the family division, recurring problems identified in earlier reports, and comparisons with other states. Members discussed organizing testimony into three broad topics: the court hearing process and pro se litigant preparation, mediation/arbitration/counseling, and the interaction of domestic violence issues with family court and related criminal proceedings. The chair also noted that the subcommittee would not meet again for two weeks and encouraged members to review materials from Judge Michael Mace and NCSL research on other states’ family court systems. Attorney Heather Culp, senior administrator for the judicial branch’s circuit court, testified about New Hampshire’s ADR programs. She explained that the Office of Mediation and Arbitration, created by statute in 2007, oversees more than 12 statewide ADR programs across the Supreme, Superior, and Circuit Courts, including family division programs such as divorce-parenting mediation, neutral case evaluation, guardianship, termination of parental rights, and voluntary adoption mediation. She said the divorce-parenting mediation program is the largest family division ADR program, with about 3,400 mediation sessions in 2023 out of roughly 6,700 cases, and that most cases involving minor children are referred to mediation soon after the first appearance session. Culp described the family division process as beginning with a first appearance session led by a case manager, who provides information, helps with paperwork, and schedules mediation, usually within 30 to 45 days. She said mediation is strongly encouraged in parenting and divorce cases, but there is no requirement to reach agreement, and parties may settle some issues while leaving others for court. She also explained that mediation is prohibited or limited in certain domestic violence cases: cases with active civil protection orders may proceed only with both parties’ consent and possible safeguards, while cases involving criminal protective orders are not sent to mediation. Mediators in court-referred family cases are contracted with the court and must be certified by the executive branch’s mediator certification board; mediators do not communicate with judges, except through a brief ADR report noting whether the case settled or what the next procedural step is. Members asked about referrals, timing, and the meaning of “neutrals,” and Culp said the court uses in-house contracted neutrals for family division ADR and does not refer divorce-parenting cases to outside providers.

Transcript Highlights:

• we<03:53:02.159> did the process of hearings and we did the process of hearings and we did
• process hearings to enforce expedited do process hearings to enforce special<03:58:46.560> education
• Thank you. expedited due process hearings to expedited due process hearings to enforce<03:59:27.159><
• due process hearing.
• <04:03:28.920> they process hearing and it's because they process hearing and it's because

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Education Policy and Administration Committee heard testimony on HB 222, which would repeal the requirement that a chartered public school and the resident school district sign a memorandum of understanding on how students with disabilities will receive special education services. The prime sponsor, Rep. Peggy Balboni, said the bill was requested by the New Hampshire Association of Special Education Administrators and the New Hampshire Alliance for Public Charter Schools. She argued that federal and state law already require districts to provide FAPE and that the MOU requirement has created extra work, legal costs, and delays without improving services. She said many MOUs remain unsigned, but students are still receiving services and complaint numbers have not changed. Rep. Mooney also supported repeal, calling the MOU duplicative and impractical because IEPs and 504 plans already govern services. Testimony from Jane B. Brulu of the special education administrators’ association and Beth McLure of the charter schools alliance echoed that view, saying the MOU has not helped students, has added hours of work and legal fees, and has mostly been a source of disputes over funding and service costs. McLure said her school has worked with more than 15 districts and has always been able to reach agreements, though the first year of the requirement took substantial time and money. Committee members asked about the original purpose of the law, unsigned MOUs, and whether disputes could be resolved without the requirement. A representative from the Department of Education said the MOU was originally proposed to address reports that some students were not getting services on time and to provide some oversight, but the department has no authority to order charter schools or districts to agree and no appeal process if they cannot. The department also said it does not currently audit charter school special education services because it lacks authority to monitor charter schools directly, and it urged the committee to consider some alternative oversight if the MOU requirement is repealed. The hearing on HB 222 was then closed, and the committee announced it would begin the hearing on HB 699 after a short break.

Transcript Highlights:

• You can hear the gavel. That's how loud. Is this on? I hear the gavel; that's how loud. Is this on?
• due process of law.
• There's no due process.
• , or any hearing at all.
• With no court hearing ever.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee opened with procedural guidance for a very large hearing, explaining testimony limits, written testimony procedures, and rules for maintaining order. Members then heard testimony on a wide range of bills, including proposals to define antisemitism using the IHRA definition, regulate facial recognition technology, restrict weaponized robotics and drone use, expand protections for journalists’ confidential sources, address access to decedents’ email accounts, and create or adjust rules around municipal enforcement and animal cruelty fines. Several sponsors and advocates asked for favorable reports, and committee members asked clarifying questions on implementation, costs, and how the bills would interact with existing law. On facial recognition, sponsors and advocates described the technology as a threat to privacy, due process, and civil liberties, and urged adoption of the Special Commission’s recommendations, including warrant requirements, notice to defendants, and limits on untargeted surveillance. Support came from legislators, the ACLU, CDT, EFF, and a UMass professor, while committee members asked about current state law and municipal bans. On robotics, Senator Moore and industry witnesses from MassRobotics, Boston Dynamics, and AUVSI supported a bill prohibiting weaponized robots and requiring warrants for certain law enforcement uses, describing it as a public-safety and trust-building measure. On the shield law bill, newspaper publishers, journalists, NEFAC, and the Reporters Committee argued Massachusetts needs statutory protection for confidential sources, citing costly subpoenas and chilling effects on reporting. The committee also heard testimony on a bill to expand the right of publicity to cover image and voice, with SAG-AFTRA members supporting protections against AI-driven exploitation and some discussion about viral content and consent. Another bill would allow limited access to a decedent’s email accounts, with one witness describing a family’s inability to use a deceased relative’s email to notify friends. The committee then took testimony on psilocybin-related bills: supporters described medical and personal benefits and argued for narrow decriminalization or study, while an opponent warned of public-health risks, impaired driving, and youth exposure; the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society supported limited, safety-based decriminalization. Finally, the committee heard strong support for a “safe reporting” bill for sex workers and trafficking survivors, with advocates saying immunity would encourage victims and witnesses to report crimes without fear of arrest, and members raised questions about how the immunity would work in practice.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Gordon then welcomed everyone to the hearing and noted that this was likely the 12th hearing
• after the conclusion of the hearing.
• Can you unmute so we can hear you?
• Can you hear me? Yes, hi. Hi. Yes.
• So I am delighted to hear that.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a hearing focused primarily on special education-related bills, with testimony centered on two major themes: transition planning for students aging out of school-based services at age 22, and the fiscal strain special education costs place on districts. Committee members explained hearing procedures, noted the House was in formal session, and periodically stepped out for votes while staff recorded testimony. A separate bill on special education due process was also taken up briefly, along with a bill on special education finance and another on equitable access/data reporting. On House Bill 752 and Senate Bill 313, witnesses from the Arc of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Down Syndrome Congress, the Developmental Disabilities Council, families, self-advocates, and Senator Comerford described the “Turning 22” transition as a crisis point that often leaves families without adult placements, services, or clear communication. Testimony emphasized earlier planning, more accountability, better data collection, and a commission to improve coordination and residential placement. Several parents and advocates shared personal accounts of traumatic transitions, delayed placements, and the need for plans to begin at least a year before age 22. The committee later closed testimony on these bills after hearing from all signed-up speakers. House Bill 4217, on special education due process, drew support from Representative Sullivan-Almeida, parents, and advocates who argued that the burden of proof should shift from families to school districts. Testimony described costly legal battles, delays, and parents having to become experts in reading instruction or hire advocates and attorneys to secure services. Brody Dwyer, a 10-year-old student with dyslexia, and his mother described how evidence-based instruction helped him after years of struggle. The committee also heard testimony on House Bill 546/Senate Bill 317, which would require DESE to publish cross-tabulated data on race, disability, gender, income, and other factors; advocates said this would better expose disparities and help address the school-to-prison pipeline. Finally, on House Bill 691/Senate Bill 430, school leaders, educators, and union representatives testified that special education costs are outpacing district budgets and that increasing circuit breaker reimbursement and creating a commission to study long-term sustainability would help prevent staffing cuts and service reductions. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee repeatedly closed testimony on individual bills as speakers finished and moved through the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• , no due process, no due process in these settings.
• due process later.
• Instead, following a court hearing with due process and a judge's ruling, firearms are temporarily removed
• Secret hearings, secret bureaucratic hearing. Had no idea that it happened.
• Hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will now hear from any primary witnesses in opposition.
• SB 28 protects his due process.
• Are the remaining items left to be heard in this hearing.
• And I trust that the process will play out. So thank you.
• through the hearing again for add-ons.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard a series of bills focused on behavioral health, cancer screening, provider reimbursement, research funding, workforce licensing, and tobacco regulation. SB 16 would require counties to maintain procedures for designating and training professionals authorized to perform 5150 evaluations and initiate involuntary holds; supporters said it would expand the pool of qualified clinicians and reduce reliance on law enforcement, while opponents raised concerns about local control and implementation. SB 1124 would require CDPH to create and post lung cancer screening eligibility signage at tobacco point-of-sale locations; supporters emphasized low screening awareness and early detection, and the bill was advanced with amendments. SB 28, a CARE Court cleanup bill, proposed an ombudsperson, reporting, electronic petitions, remote participation, and other changes to improve accountability and access; it drew both strong support and significant opposition over concerns about coercion, scope, and whether the program is working as intended, but it passed the committee as amended to Judiciary. The committee also heard SB 874, which would strengthen oversight of Medi-Cal behavioral health treatment services, including background checks for providers and a stakeholder workgroup to develop standards; it passed to Public Safety. SB 1049 would let providers resubmit corrected claims within 90 days after a plan’s denial or recoupment action when the original claim had a correctable technical defect; supporters described delayed and withheld payments harming practices, while insurers argued the bill could duplicate existing dispute processes. The bill passed to Appropriations on call. SB 1224 would create a state framework to compete for federal ARPA-H funding for emerging therapies research, with testimony from a UC Davis psychiatrist and veterans’ advocates supporting expanded research into treatments for PTSD, depression, and other conditions; it passed to Military and Veterans Affairs. Later, SB 1057 would change how the Department of Public Health evaluates conviction history for certified nurse assistants and home health aides, shifting from automatic denial toward individualized assessment based on the offense, time elapsed, and rehabilitation; it passed to Appropriations with some no votes. Finally, SB 1314, a tobacco-related bill, sought to create a 600-foot buffer around schools and day care centers for certain tobacco retailers and address related issues such as cigar lounge definitions and nitrous oxide sales; several local government and public safety groups supported it, while health organizations and business groups opposed it unless amended. The chair announced that committee amendments were being set aside for now and the bill would move forward to Business and Professions with a commitment to continue working on the language; it passed out of committee.