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:

• <00:25:39.120> the the um very complicated process. the the um very complicated process. the
• the uh impracticality of processing the uh impracticality of processing someone<00:35:46.480>
• due process rights are being violated. due process rights are being violated.
• And also is one of the processes.
• get to do if you have due process? get to do if you have due process?

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee held an informational briefing on the impact and legality of federal immigration enforcement efforts in Hawaii, with Chair Carl Rhodes framing it as the sixth and final interim briefing in a series on the rule of law and local effects of federal actions. He said the discussion would focus on due process concerns, questioning and detention of citizens and lawful immigrants, free speech issues, and pressure on state and local law enforcement, and noted the issues may be revisited in the 2026 regular session. There was no public testimony or committee vote; only invited speakers presented. Dr. Amy Agayani opened by arguing that immigrants are integral to Hawaii’s history, economy, and communities, and contrasted that with what she described as harmful narratives portraying immigrants as criminals. She cited figures that one in five Hawaii residents is foreign-born, that immigrants make up about 20% of the labor force and over 27% of entrepreneurs, and that roughly 40,000 people in Hawaii are undocumented, many of whom may have pathways to legal status but face language, information, and court barriers. She also said federal enforcement has expanded beyond undocumented immigrants to include citizens and lawful residents, and warned that attacks on birthright citizenship and visa categories could affect many families. Matina Mock of the legal clinic emphasized the complexity of immigration law and the severe lack of legal representation, noting a nationwide backlog of 11.3 million immigration-related applications and 3.4 million court cases, plus about 1,400 pending immigration cases in Honolulu with only two immigration judges. She said Hawaii has only six or seven nonprofit immigration legal service providers, and that represented clients are far more likely to obtain relief. Mock described a recent case involving a lawful student visa holder who was transferred among multiple federal facilities before being brought to Honolulu without clear notice, which she said illustrated due process violations. She also said ICE activity in Hawaii has sharply increased, with about 150 arrests from January to July 2025, a 380% increase over the same period in 2024, and that many detainees have no criminal record. Stephanie Haro Sevilla and another clinic fellow described 2025 enforcement as a major shift driven by a January executive order, the end of prior limits on arrests in sensitive locations, and arrest quotas they said require 3,000 arrests per day nationwide. They said this has led to arrests without warrants or probable cause, broader targeting of people with minor offenses or no criminal history, and the use of resources from other federal agencies and local law enforcement for civilian immigration enforcement. They also said the federal detention center in Honolulu is holding roughly 40 to 80 civilian detainees on any given day, often in conditions they characterized as prison-like, and warned that the current escalation could eventually affect lawful permanent residents and naturalized citizens. The speakers urged the public to support immigrant-rights advocates and local protective policies and funding measures.

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:

• delay the ethics trial or hearing. delay the ethics trial or hearing.
• part of that process. part of that process.
• Did you hear the question? Did you hear the question?
• What is the process?
• What is the process? Let's say that this What is the process?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• in the hearing.
• <00:02:27.959> so<00:02:28.800> that hearing to be a joint hearing so that hearing
• We will have the hearing.
• So pre-processing is great.
• process.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . process. process.
• that process at ISO? that process at ISO?
• The final process process being set up.
• benefit of the process. benefit of the process.
• processes.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, the accreditation process here. You'll hear that it's impossible that we're preventing choice.
• You'll you'll hear that it's here.
• track a claim through the whole process. track a claim through the whole process.
• that they're okay during that process. that they're okay during that process.
• <01:35:46.040> Leort process because you know Mr. Leort process because you know Mr.

Keywords: 1183, house

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:

• Can you hear me? Representative Steeby, are you introducing yourself? I was. Can you hear me? Yeah.
• yesterday and hearing tomorrow.
• But interested in hearing people's ideas.
• And we're comfortable taking those public hearings out of the process.
• But I do want to say that's the sort of thing I hear.

Summary: The committee held a work session on local government issues, beginning with an update from the State Building Code Council on four legislatively mandated code amendments now in CR-102 rulemaking: temporary emergency shelters, reduced minimum dwelling unit size, multiplex housing up to three stories and six units, and single-exit apartment buildings up to six stories. Council staff also described a separate embodied-carbon appendix proposal that remains under public review, with testimony both supporting and opposing it. Members asked about the rationale for some of the code limits, including the restriction on connecting multiplex buildings. The committee then heard a panel on annexations from MRSC, Pierce County, and the Association of Washington Cities. Witnesses reviewed annexation methods, including petition, election, and interlocal agreement approaches, and said larger annexations are increasingly using interlocal agreements because they can address infrastructure, revenue sharing, and public process concerns. They described barriers such as inconsistent local standards, the cost of infrastructure, referendum risk, census requirements, and the difficulty of persuading residents and local officials to support annexation. Members asked about the five-year restriction on residential zoning changes in one annexation method and whether a hearing examiner could reduce political pressure on local decision-makers. A second panel discussed subdivision reform. The Master Builders Association urged raising the short-plat threshold within urban growth areas to 30 lots as a simpler first step, citing permitting delays and added housing costs. The City of Spokane described implementation problems with recent housing laws, including uncertainty about how to review plats under HB 1110, lot-splitting administration, and added notice requirements for unit lot subdivisions. AWC said there was broad agreement that subdivision decisions should be more administrative, but public hearings remained a point of disagreement. The committee also heard from FutureWise, the Washington State Association of Counties, and Lewis County on county development regulation and enforcement, with witnesses emphasizing underfunded code enforcement, inconsistent standards between counties and cities, and the need for better coordination, incentives, and possibly stronger enforcement tools. No votes were taken; the chair said the committee would continue working on possible solutions in future sessions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Michigan's process so I'm I'm interested Michigan's process so I'm I'm interested in<00:10:26.120>
• permitting process after they left the state.
• was slower than the Minnesota process was slower than the Minnesota process the<00:21:33.480>
• legislature without a single hearing legislature without a single hearing gave<00:21:45.880>
• Hinman um I hear what you're saying Hinman um I hear what you're saying we're<00:28:51.279> the

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So it's a really lopsided process.
• And the process is... But the process is... But the process is... It's three lines.
• Did you hear the scenario I asked earlier? Did you hear the scenario I asked earlier?
• Any time after this process, once that offer-counteroffer process starts, and if we end up in the condemnation
• It's not a rulemaking process.

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 5695, which would create the Sayers Ranch Municipal Utility District in Bastrop County between Elgin and Bastrop. Representative Gurdis said Bastrop County commissioners unanimously supported the district. There was no public testimony, the bill was left pending, and later reported favorably to the full House on an 8-0 vote. The main debate centered on Senate Bill 291, which would require condemning entities to pay landowner attorney’s fees if they fail to provide 10 years of appraisal reports with an initial offer in an eminent domain case. Supporters, including Rita Beving and Charles Maley, argued the bill would add an enforcement mechanism and better protect landowners in a process they described as intimidating and lopsided. Opponents, including Tom Zabel and Lisa Kaufman, said current law already provides a remedy through abatement and attorney’s fees under Section 21.047 of the Property Code, and warned the bill could create inconsistency, delay public infrastructure projects, and increase costs. The bill was left pending. The committee also heard House Bill 5699, a simple MUD boundary change in Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 405 that would allow a tract to leave one district and join another. Representative Schofield said the landowner and district agreed to the change and to pay the tract’s share of debt. The committee substitute was adopted and the bill was reported favorably on an 8-0 vote. Later, the committee considered House Bill 5489, which would impose a four-year moratorium on impact fees. Representative Dyson framed it as an “active study” to test whether impact fees raise housing costs. College Station officials and other opponents argued impact fees help fund infrastructure for growth and that local governments should retain control; supporters said the fees are regressive and add to housing prices. The bill was left pending. The committee then heard Senate Bill 292, which would update the Landowner Bill of Rights to add information on surveys, require separate offers for property not sought in condemnation, and require the rights document to be delivered with the initial offer. Supporters said it would improve transparency and fill gaps in the current document, while opponents said it was unnecessary because the law already exists and warned against revisiting a 2021 compromise. The transcript ends during that discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• discovery in due process hearings for actions seeking to enforce special education rights.
• discovery in due process hearings for actions seeking to enforce special education rights.
• > for<03:02:54.399> hearing streamline the process for hearing streamline the process for
• <03:03:01.439> hearing<03:03:02.240> and outset of a due process hearing and outset
• <03:05:21.040> hearing,<03:05:21.359> there we're in a due process hearing, there we're

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Can you hear us okay? Can you hear us okay if you want to nod?
• Can you hear us okay if you want to nod? Yeah. You all hear me? Yes, we can. Okay. All right.
• Oh, we're processed. We were processed and convicted in the 13th Amendment that makes it legal.
• Can you hear me? Thank you very much. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Wonderful.
• Can everyone hear me all right? Yes, we can hear you. All right.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Election Laws held a hearing on a wide range of voting-access and election-administration bills. The largest portion of testimony focused on same-day voter registration (H. 834/S. 505), with support from Rep. Gentile, Boston and Chelsea officials, civic groups, and election administrators from Maine and Vermont. Supporters argued that same-day registration would help eligible voters who move frequently, miss deadlines, or face administrative errors, and would reduce rejected provisional ballots. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows and Vermont elections director Sean Sheehan testified that same-day registration has worked in their states without major administrative problems and has helped increase turnout. A Boston-based panel also described high rejection rates for provisional ballots and the burden of registration cutoffs on renters, students, immigrants, and low-income voters. A second major topic was restoration of voting rights for incarcerated people, including S. 524 and related House bills. The committee heard extensive virtual testimony from incarcerated individuals at MCI Norfolk and MCI Shirley, who said voting should be restored as part of rehabilitation, civic engagement, and reintegration. They described disenfranchisement as dehumanizing and argued that voting would help maintain family and community ties, reduce recidivism, and give incarcerated people a voice on laws affecting prisons and reentry. Rep. Erica Uyterhoeven also testified in support, saying the bill would restore municipal voting rights for incarcerated residents and align with broader efforts to expand political participation. The committee also heard testimony on bills affecting election administration and access, including a proposal to reduce or eliminate mandated early in-person voting in primaries and shorten the general-election early voting period, with supporters from the town clerks’ community arguing that low usage, staffing burdens, and costs justify the change. Opponents warned that reducing in-person early voting could hurt voters who do not use mail ballots and could disproportionately affect communities of color. Other bills discussed included decoupling the municipal census from voter registration, requiring periodic accessibility inspections of polling places, and a Somerville home-rule petition on non-citizen municipal voting and another on lowering the voting age in municipal elections. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We need We need a uniform Brady process.
• <00:04:36.639> for with the goal of a fair process for with the goal of a fair process for
• <00:21:10.799> and him following last year's hearing and him following last year's hearing
• <00:21:33.600> that I'm am I just correct in hearing that I'm am I just correct in hearing
• doing justice and ensuring due process doing justice and ensuring due process is<00:22:54.400>

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee heard House File 962, the Brady-Giglio bill, which seeks to create a more uniform statewide process for how prosecutors identify and manage law enforcement officers whose credibility may be questioned. The author explained that the bill grew out of stakeholder work over the past year, and the committee adopted the DE3 amendment, which reflected much of that negotiated language. Testifiers from the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, Law Enforcement Labor Services, the Minnesota Sheriffs Association, the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, and the Minnesota County Attorneys Association all said the bill was moving in the right direction and emphasized the need for consistency, predictability, security, and due process in Brady-Giglio decisions. Several witnesses said the bill should prevent Brady designations from being used as the sole basis for discipline and should prohibit prosecutor-maintained do-not-call lists. County attorney and law enforcement representatives said the current draft is a major step forward but that work remains, especially on data access, data retention, sharing, and security provisions. They also noted that the language had not yet been fully approved by all stakeholder boards, though they supported continuing the process and asked the committee to advance the bill so negotiations could continue. Members raised questions about whether public defenders, defendants’ rights groups, and other public employees had been included in the discussions. The author and other supporters said the main alignment so far has been among prosecutors and law enforcement, with additional input from other groups to come later. In closing, the author described personal experiences that illustrated how an error or misunderstanding could unfairly affect an officer’s career and argued for a statewide standard. The committee then voted to re-refer House File 962, as amended, to the Judiciary Committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Sorry, as I hear me think out loud, my thought process.
• Then we'll hear from Dr.
• We'll hear from the L.A.O. next.
• public process.
• It’s a process that’s a very community-involved process.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , contracting process, ongoing oversight and evaluation processes, and renewal criteria and processes
• process.
• <00:20:53.840> Um<00:20:54.240> and and describe the hearing process.
• Um and and describe the hearing process.
• I will hear it next week. So I pass. I will hear it next week.

Bills: HF3487, HF3421

Keywords: anonymous reporting, school safety, education, crisis intervention, threat reporting, early literacy, reading instruction, teacher preparation, teacher candidates, teacher licensure, educator licensing, Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board, PELSB, field experience, supervised practicum, evidence-based reading, science of reading, literacy methods, teacher training, preservice teachers

Transcript Highlights:

• The next item that I have a question on: we had hearings here with Sub 6 dealing with remote hearings
• These would process advocacy claims.
• During the hearing opening.
• Even as far as approval process?
• And with, again, the hearing we had, we went through the whole process, half a billion dollars got us

Summary: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 heard the Governor’s May Revision proposals for the judicial branch, the Board of State and Community Corrections, the Department of Justice, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The Legislative Analyst’s Office opened with a warning that the state budget remains structurally imbalanced and urged the Legislature to avoid new ongoing spending unless offset by reductions elsewhere. In the judicial branch discussion, the Judicial Council highlighted language access funding, appellate court security, a backfill for the state court facilities construction fund, and an extension of the lactation room mandate; Finance supported most items but suggested reporting language on interpreter costs and reducing the General Fund backfill. Members raised concerns about judicial vacancies, long-term salary freezes, remote hearings, and the lack of progress on court staffing in some counties. For the Board of State and Community Corrections, the administration proposed $10 million one-time each for the Missing and Murdered Indigenous People grant program and a human trafficking vertical prosecution grant program. The LAO said both should be weighed against other priorities and suggested the Legislature consider whether the Tribal Nations Grant Fund could support MMIP work, while Finance said it preferred General Fund support and wanted more review before any fund swap. Members strongly supported MMIP funding and asked whether ongoing support would be considered. On the human trafficking grant, Finance said BSC was a good fit because of its grant administration experience and prior vertical prosecution work, while legislators asked why the program was not placed with the Office of Emergency Services as originally contemplated in prior legislation. The Department of Justice presented antitrust litigation funding, Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse staffing, completion of organized retail criminal enterprise cases, and trailer bill language for a continuous appropriation from the Victims of Consumer Fraud Restitution Fund. The LAO supported the antitrust account use but questioned the Unfair Competition Law Fund’s ability to cover the full request without General Fund repayment, and recommended against a continuous appropriation for the restitution fund in favor of a more limited mechanism with legislative oversight. Finance said the fund would remain solvent and defended the continuous appropriation as necessary to pay victims promptly. In the CDCR portion, the largest discussion centered on the Boston Consulting Group efficiency review and sharply reduced savings estimates; LAO said the department had not fully explained the proposed position eliminations or future $100 million savings target, while Finance said the work reflected deeper analysis and ongoing efforts to find savings. Members repeatedly pressed CDCR and Finance on the gap between earlier promised savings and the revised figures. CDCR also outlined population projections showing continued declines in prison and parole populations, while LAO again urged the state to close an additional prison to save ongoing costs. The department then walked through several May Revision items, including workers’ compensation funding, a Corcoran honor housing dorm, incarcerated firefighter pay implementation, an incarcerated menopause program, mental health receiver staffing, mental health resource teams and crisis intervention teams, medical classification staffing changes, and AI note-taking for the electronic health record. LAO generally recommended limiting-term funding and more reporting for many of these proposals, while Finance defended them as necessary ongoing investments or court-ordered obligations. Members questioned the cost of workers’ compensation, the need for more prison closures, the lack of funding for women’s facility violence prevention, and the timing and transparency of the BCG savings process. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, you set a hearing, court goes through its ordinary process of taking in evidence, considering
• I mean, you set a hearing, court goes through its ordinary process of taking in evidence, considering
• I mean, you set a hearing, court goes through its ordinary process of taking in evidence, considering
• I mean, you set a hearing, court goes through its ordinary process of taking in evidence, considering
• I mean, you set a hearing, court goes through its ordinary process of taking in evidence, considering

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• After the outcomes review portion of the hearing, we will also hear from our tribal leaders, mental health
• that this process can be more than a single hearing.
• We can now hear from Virginia Hedrick. Thank you. We can now hear from Virginia Hedrick.
• We also hear from D.D.
• Appreciate the hearing. It was a really great hearing. My name is Trent Murphy.

Summary: The joint Assembly Health and Select Committee on Native American Affairs held an oversight hearing on AB 988, California’s 988 crisis line and mobile crisis response system, followed by a discussion of suicide prevention and intervention in California Indian communities. Members and witnesses repeatedly emphasized that AB 988 was intended to create a true alternative to 911 for behavioral health crises, with “someone to call, someone to come, and somewhere to go,” and that Native communities continue to face disproportionately high suicide rates and barriers to culturally responsive care. The first panel of call center and stakeholder witnesses largely argued that implementation is falling short of the law’s intent. They said 988 call centers are underfunded, text/chat answer rates remain far below call answer rates, staffing is strained, and the system still lacks meaningful statewide interoperability between 988 and 911. Several witnesses said mobile crisis teams are not being dispatched through 988 as envisioned, and that funding formulas and governance are too opaque. San Joaquin County was presented as a local success story, with integrated 988, access lines, and mobile crisis handoffs that have reduced reliance on emergency departments and involuntary holds. Witnesses also discussed the need for better tribal outreach, the role of CCBHCs, and the importance of culturally competent services. State officials from CalHHS and DHCS described the five-year 988 implementation plan, the current governance structure across multiple agencies, and efforts to support training, public awareness, and referral tools. They reported growth in 988 contacts, ongoing training with the Trevor Project, a statewide resource directory, and a tribal awareness campaign. DHCS also outlined proposed trailer bill language that would create a formal designation process for 988 centers, set statewide standards, and require existing centers to obtain designation by 2029. Officials said current funding includes SAMHSA grants, block grant dollars, and an expected $67.3 million from the 988 fund in the next budget year, with a large share earmarked for Medi-Cal mobile crisis services. No formal vote or committee action was taken in the portion of the hearing provided.