Bills: SB31, SB33, SB510, SB871, SB1868, SB2024, SB2166, SB2309, SB2880, SJR27, SJR39, SJR40, SB 31, SB 33

Keywords: SB 31, Life of the Mother Act, Texas abortion law, medical emergency, reasonable medical judgment, pregnancy complications, maternal health, life-threatening condition, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, miscarriage, unborn child, abortion exception, abortion ban, physician liability, health care liability claim, aiding and abetting, Texas Medical Board, State Bar of Texas, continuing medical education

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill requires that the Alabama Department of Public Health is required to develop educational programs
• This substitute only takes the requirement for Medicaid to stop doing the two-step program, which means
• The program, as you can imagine, requires waiting long to see if a drug is effective.

Bills: SB191, HB84, HB79, SB132, HB108, HB109, HB110, HB114, HB118, HB120, HB122, HB124, HB126, HB128, HB129, HB131

Keywords: postpartum depression, mental health, Medicaid, screening, education, maternal health, Chiropractic, Board of Chiropractic Examiners, license renewal, continuing education, election procedures, off-label, pharmacists, medical treatment, state board of pharmacy, employment protection, SB132, Alabama, controlled substances, Schedule I

Transcript Highlights:

• from an Excel Center with a high school diploma, compared to students who were offered the program and
• So foundation funds make up 56% of total funds received by districts and charters in the 2025 school
• Foundation funds make up 56% of total funds received by districts and charters in the 2025 school year
• And these are districts that are not receiving state foundation aid in any particular individual school
• Enhanced student achievement, or ESA, formerly known as the National School Lunch Program, is used to

Summary: The House and Senate Education Committee first approved minutes from February 2 and 3, then took up an interim study proposal on adult education and the Excel Center model. Representatives from Goodwill Industries of Arkansas, the Excel Center network, and the University of Notre Dame’s Lab for Economic Opportunities testified that roughly 300,000 Arkansans over age 19 lack a high school diploma or GED, and argued that the Excel Center provides a supported diploma pathway for adults who struggle with GED testing. Witnesses highlighted wraparound services such as free child care, transportation assistance, tutoring, life coaching, and career services, and cited outcomes including high retention, growing enrollment, and research showing higher employment and earnings and lower criminal justice involvement for graduates. Committee members raised questions about the state’s role, existing adult education programs, and how the study would be structured; the motion to adopt the ISP passed, though there was some procedural disagreement about when questions should have been taken. The committee then heard a detailed adequacy funding overview from BLR staff Katie Walden and Adrian Beck on Arkansas K-12 education finance. They reviewed national funding principles and explained Arkansas’s system, including state and local revenue sources, the Public School Fund, the Educational Excellence Trust Fund, the Educational Adequacy Fund, and the Facilities Partnership Program. Staff said K-12 state and local revenues totaled $6.6 billion in 2025, with foundation funding making up the largest share of district and charter funding, followed by additional, categorical, and supplemental funds. They also explained the matrix-based foundation formula, the role of the uniform rate of tax, and how categorical and supplemental funds support areas such as alternative learning, English learners, special education high-cost cases, teacher salary equalization, declining enrollment, and student growth. Members asked several follow-up questions about how specific funding categories are defined and used, including student support staff, instructional aides, special education high-cost occurrences, ALE funding, teacher salary equalization, and the inclusion of Excel Center amounts in state-local funding totals. Staff said some of those details would be addressed in a later presentation and offered to provide additional records, including district lists and historical information. The meeting ended after the funding overview, with no additional votes or actions beyond the ISP adoption and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• from an Excel Center with a high school diploma, compared to students who were offered the program and
• funding for traditional public schools as well as charter schools.
• funding for traditional public schools as well as charter schools.
• And these are districts that are not receiving state foundation aid in any particular individual school
• Enhanced student achievement, or ESA, formerly known as the National School Lunch Program.

Summary: The House and Senate Education Committee first approved minutes from February 2 and 3, then heard an interim study proposal on Arkansas adult education and the Excel Center model, presented by Goodwill Industries of Arkansas and the University of Notre Dame’s Lab for Economic Opportunities. Witnesses argued that about 300,000 Arkansas adults lack a high school diploma or GED and described the Excel Center as a diploma-granting public charter option for adults 19 and older, with wraparound supports such as child care, transportation, tutoring, life coaching, and career services. They said the Arkansas campuses are not state-funded, highlighted growth in enrollment and graduation outcomes, and cited research showing improved employment, earnings, and reduced criminal justice involvement for graduates. Committee members discussed the role of Goodwill’s nonprofit mission, the need for multiple adult education pathways, and the relationship between adult education challenges and broader state efforts such as LEARNS and ACCESS. The committee then debated the interim study proposal procedure, including whether questions should have been taken before the vote. The motion to adopt the ISP passed, and members noted that the study would broadly examine adult education, GED testing, high school diplomas, charter schools, in-person adult education, and funding allocation. Several members asked for follow-up information on current adult education funding, the availability of Excel Centers, and the criminal justice study results. After that, staff from the Bureau of Legislative Research gave a detailed adequacy funding overview for Arkansas K-12 education. They reviewed national funding principles and then explained Arkansas’s revenue streams and distribution system, including general revenue, the Educational Excellence Trust Fund, the Educational Adequacy Fund, local property-tax revenues, and facilities partnership funding. They also walked through the state’s foundation formula, categorical aid, supplemental aid, and additional funding, including the per-student matrix amount of $7,771 for 2025 and how funds are allocated to districts and charters. Members asked about student support staff, special education high-cost occurrences, ALE funding, teacher salary equalization, and the Excel Center’s treatment in funding totals; staff said some of those questions would be addressed in a later spending presentation. The meeting ended after the committee was told the department was present mainly to answer questions and no further business remained.

Transcript Highlights:

• from an Excel Center with a high school diploma, compared to students who were offered the program and
• funding for traditional public schools as well as charter schools.
• So foundation funds make up 56% of total funds received by districts and charters in the 25 school year
• And these are districts that are not receiving state foundation aid in any particular individual school
• Enhanced student achievement, or ESA, formerly known as the National School Lunch Program, is used to

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The House and Senate Education Committee first approved minutes from February 2 and 3, then heard an interim study proposal on Arkansas adult education, presented by Goodwill Industries of Arkansas and the Excel Center network. Witnesses described the state’s adult diploma gap, arguing that roughly 300,000 Arkansans over age 19 lack a high school diploma or GED and that the Excel Center provides a supported, diploma-based alternative with child care, transportation help, tutoring, and career services. Goodwill officials said the Arkansas campuses are the state’s only public adult charter high schools, are not state-funded, and have produced strong enrollment growth and graduation outcomes. A University of Notre Dame researcher testified that a study of Excel Center graduates found higher employment and earnings, more credential and college-credit attainment, and lower criminal justice involvement, with a high estimated return on public investment. Some members questioned the framing of Arkansas’s adult education challenges and whether the state was being portrayed too negatively, while others asked about wraparound services and the role of nonprofit providers. The committee ultimately adopted the interim study proposal, though there was some procedural confusion and debate about whether questions should have come before the vote. The committee then received a detailed Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on Arkansas K-12 education funding as part of the adequacy study. Staff reviewed national funding principles and Arkansas’s funding structure, including state, local, and other revenues; the Public School Fund; Department of Education operations; and the Facilities Partnership Program. They explained that 2025 K-12 state and local revenues totaled about $6.6 billion, with foundation funding, categorical funding, supplemental funding, and additional funding distributed to districts and charters. The presentation covered the matrix used to calculate foundation funding, the role of the uniform rate of tax, the Educational Excellence Trust Fund, the Educational Adequacy Fund, and how charter schools are funded differently from traditional districts. Staff also discussed categorical programs such as alternative learning environments, English learner funding, enhanced student achievement, and professional development, as well as supplemental categories including transportation, special education high-cost occurrences, teacher salary equalization, declining enrollment, and student growth. Members asked numerous questions about the funding formulas, the meaning of specific staffing categories, how categorical funds are used, and the number of districts receiving teacher salary equalization or ALE funding. One member noted that the Excel Center’s funding appeared in the broader state-local totals and asked for clarification. Staff said some of the more detailed spending questions would be addressed in the next day’s presentation and offered to provide follow-up information, including district lists and historical changes. The meeting ended after the chair noted that the department was present mainly to answer questions, not to deliver a separate update, and no further business was taken up before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we're doing these after-school and summer programs as well as partnering with schools.
• And we're doing these after-school and summer programs as well as partnering with schools.
• And we're doing these after-school and summer programs as well as partnering with schools.
• And we're doing these after-school and summer programs as well as partnering with schools.
• And we're doing these after-school and summer programs as well as partnering with schools.

Summary: The committee heard an interim study on expanding or simplifying sales tax exemptions for Oklahoma nonprofits. Representatives Stark and Schreiber said the issue has been filed repeatedly over several sessions and framed it as a bipartisan effort to keep more charitable dollars in service of communities rather than paying sales tax. Schreiber also suggested broader tax reform or an omnibus approach rather than continuing to add individual exemptions. Marnie Taylor of the Oklahoma Center for Nonprofits gave an overview of the sector, describing nonprofits as a major part of the state economy and safety net, and argued that many organizations are highly regulated, under-resourced, and facing declining donations and funding. She said the current patchwork of exemptions is uneven and that a blanket or broader exemption would help organizations serving public needs. Committee members asked for sources behind some of the poverty, education, and health rankings cited in her presentation. Several nonprofit leaders testified about how sales tax affects their operations. RG Foods described the cost of opening neighborhood grocery markets in food deserts and said sales tax on a Tulsa project would divert about $85,000 from programming. Jubilee Partners, Skyline Urban Outreach, the Pencil Box, the Tulsa Police Foundation, Blue Rose Ranch, and Legacy Parenting Center each explained how exemption status or the lack of it affects food assistance, school supplies, public safety equipment, animal rescue, and diapers and family support. Members asked follow-up questions about food desert definitions, budgets, and how much sales tax savings would change operations. No vote was taken in the excerpt, but the study concluded with closing remarks emphasizing that the exemption would keep more money in direct services and support the nonprofit sector statewide.

Transcript Highlights:

• Not touch the foundation program as currently configured.
• You would have your funding program—the dark part is the foundation program—and then you can see on top
• program that would be available and... ... program that would be available, and our school systems are
• program would stand... ...that the Foundation program would stand those systems up more to the hybrid
• It's not gobbled up in the Foundation program where you can't see it very well.

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Foundation funding refers to the amount distributed to school districts for that school year from the
• public school fund.
• And finally, in school-level resources, looking at school-level findings, rural schools spent the most
• Checking up on how that program is being implemented throughout the different school districts, can we
• Frequently purchased by public schools with at least some use of foundation funds.

Summary: The House/Joint Education committee continued its adequacy study with a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, focusing first on matrix spending and then non-matrix spending. Staff explained the methodology for mapping APSCN expenditure data to matrix lines, reviewed district and school categories used in the analysis, and highlighted key findings: foundation funding covered a large share of matrix costs but total spending on matrix items exceeded foundation funding, with classroom teachers making up the largest share. Members asked for additional breakdowns on waivers, superintendent survey responses, trend data, and spending by district type, size, and rural/urban status. Staff also noted limitations in tracking two matrix lines—salary enhancement for other employees and all personnel health insurance—because of coding and definition issues. The committee then reviewed non-matrix expenditures, including instructional aides, facilities, school safety, mental health, dyslexia services, gifted and talented, and career and technical education. Staff reported that non-matrix spending remained above $2 billion over the last three years, with most of it coming from other funds rather than foundation funding. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, mental health needs, school safety, food service, athletic transportation, and whether some items should be added to the matrix. The Department of Education clarified that the building fund reflects district-held funds for construction and maintenance projects, while the facilities partnership program is a separate state process for approved projects. In the final discussion, staff summarized total spending as more than $15,800 per student in 2025, with about 69% going to matrix resources and 31% to non-matrix resources. The chair explained the adequacy process and the committee’s role in setting future funding recommendations, and members discussed the recommendations worksheet included in the binder. The chair then proposed postponing the remainder of Part Two of the presentation until a May meeting after the fiscal session, along with inviting the Department of Education back for more detailed questions; with no objections, the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Foundation funding refers to the amount distributed to school districts for that school year from the
• public school fund.
• How many school districts do we have? 259 total school districts. 259. 259.
• And finally, in school-level resources, looking at school-level findings, rural schools spent the most
• Starting with school safety... Starting with school safety.

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The joint education committee continued its adequacy study with a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, covering how Arkansas school spending is mapped to the adequacy matrix and how expenditures are split between foundation funds and other funding sources. Staff explained the methodology, district and school categories used for comparisons, and key findings for matrix spending, including that classroom teachers account for the largest share of matrix expenditures and that districts spend more per student than charter districts in most categories. Members asked for additional breakdowns on waivers, trend data, and more detailed spending by district type, and staff agreed to provide follow-up information. The committee then reviewed non-matrix spending, including instructional aides, facilities, school safety, mental health services, dyslexia support, gifted and talented, career and technical education, and other items not explicitly in the matrix. Staff noted that non-matrix spending exceeded $2 billion and that superintendents consistently identified mental health services, school safety, and dyslexia support as important needs not fully captured in the matrix. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, school safety, facilities spending, and whether some items such as food service should be included in adequacy calculations. Staff and Department of Education representatives explained that some expenditures are difficult to isolate because of coding and commingled funds, and that certain items are funded outside the matrix or through separate programs. In the final section, staff summarized total spending across matrix and non-matrix items, noting that districts spent more than the foundation amount per student and that most total spending was on matrix resources. They also highlighted data limitations, including two matrix lines that cannot be fully tracked through current accounting codes. The chair then proposed postponing the second part of the presentation until a May meeting after the fiscal session, with additional time set aside to address questions for both staff and the Department of Education. The committee agreed, and the meeting adjourned without any formal vote on policy changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Foundation funding refers to the amount distributed to school districts for that school year from the
• And finally, in school level resources, looking at school level findings, rural schools spent the most
• Urban schools school spent the most per student on substitutes and extra duty urban schools spent the
• school?
• Spending on non-matrix items using foundation. of the last three school years.

Summary: The joint education committee continued its adequacy study with a detailed Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, covering how Arkansas school districts and charters spend foundation and other funds on matrix and non-matrix items. Staff explained the methodology for mapping expenditures, the district and school categories used in the analysis, and key findings showing that districts spend more per student from all fund sources than the foundation amount alone. The presentation highlighted that classroom teachers account for the largest share of matrix spending, while operations and maintenance, student support staff, nurses, and other lines also drew significant attention. Members asked for additional breakdowns by district type, size, rural/urban status, and trend data, and several questions focused on how waivers affect funding and spending, especially for library media specialists and other positions. The committee then discussed non-matrix spending, including instructional aids, non-technology-related facilities, school safety, mental health services, dyslexia support, food service, gifted and talented, career and technical education, and other items not explicitly defined in the matrix. Staff reported that non-matrix spending exceeded $2 billion in 2025, with most of it coming from other fund sources, and that the top superintendent-identified unmet needs over recent surveys were mental health services, school safety, and dyslexia support. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, possible over-identification, and whether some support costs are being coded in ways that obscure the true spending picture. There was also discussion of facilities funding, the building fund, and the Department of Education’s partnership program for school construction and maintenance, with staff agreeing to provide more information and potentially bring department officials back for a future meeting. Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly requested more granular data and clarifications, including waiver counts and funding impacts, trend lines for superintendent-reported needs, district-by-district spending spreadsheets, and definitions for certain matrix and accounting terms such as salary enhancement, LEA indebtedness, and other employee health insurance. The chair noted that the committee would continue the adequacy process over the coming months and use the worksheet in the binder to develop recommendations for the next biennium. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting; instead, the committee received the report, asked for follow-up data, and agreed to continue the discussion at future meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• This underfunding has forced school districts to make painful cuts to staff, programs, and essential
• It's called the Peabody Personalized Remote Education Program, or PREP program, and it's a virtual school
• The goal of this bill is to expand access to language programs in our schools.
• Rural schools have already regionalized, closed buildings, shared services, cut school programs like
• , lower school health and wellness programs, and class sizes under 30 students.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education opened a hybrid public hearing on a large slate of bills related to school buildings, school finance, technology, data privacy, safety, and related education issues. Chairs Jason Lewis and Ken Gordon outlined procedures for the hearing, including two-minute testimony limits and the plan to group similar bills together. Several bills drew no testimony and were closed without further discussion, while others drew extensive testimony from legislators, school officials, parents, advocates, and educators. A major theme was school safety and student well-being. Lori Al-Hadeth testified in support of bills on alert systems in public schools, describing the loss of her daughter in the Parkland shooting and urging adoption of Alyssa’s Law-style panic alert technology. Representative Gallagher and disability advocates also supported a bill authorizing, but not requiring, airway clearance devices in schools, arguing they could save lives in choking emergencies and provide an option for people who cannot use the Heimlich maneuver. Another bill on reducing cafeteria waste drew support from a legislator and a Lexington sustainability official, who said installing dishwashers during construction would reduce waste and long-term costs. Much of the hearing focused on Chapter 70 school funding and the inflation cap. Senator Pavel Payano, Senator Sal DiDomenico, Representative Senna, and multiple local officials and school committee members from Bridgewater, Chelsea, Groton-Dunstable, and other districts argued that the 4.5% cap on inflation adjustments has left schools underfunded during years of high inflation, forcing layoffs, larger class sizes, and cuts to programs and student supports. They urged bills to eliminate the cap, restore lost funding, increase the Commonwealth’s share of the foundation budget, or create commissions to study reforms. Testimony also highlighted the impact on special education, English learners, and low-income students, with Chelsea witnesses saying the cap has cost their district about $7 million annually. School construction and MSBA reform were the other major topic. AIA Massachusetts, Boston Public Schools, Lynn officials, and AFT Massachusetts described aging facilities, overcrowding, deferred maintenance, and the difficulty of financing new schools under current reimbursement rules. Boston officials said the district has many pre-World War II buildings and has only built a handful of new schools in decades, while Lynn leaders said reimbursement rates have fallen well below the statutory 80% because of caps and ineligible costs. Witnesses urged modernization of the MSBA program, higher reimbursement rates, and more resources for school construction. The committee also heard support for a bill to study the adequacy and equity of the school building program, and chairs indicated some bills would be closed after no one signed up to testify.

Transcript Highlights:

• school program and we for the kids after school program and we are<00:18:29.480> now<00:18:29.720
• the S foundation and the Mel MS program the S foundation and the Mel MS program first<00:54:23.319
• aviation mechanic program high school aviation mechanic program positioning<03:51:01.880> Juniors
• > Mahalo school aviation mechanic program Mahalo school aviation mechanic program Mahalo for<03
• <06:10:05.718> Maui inclusion programs at 30 schools on Maui inclusion programs at 30 schools

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we're ideally we'd like to fund all of the schools for arts and schools program, but this additional
• We have that allocated, schools program.
• > program of the schools for arson schools program of the schools for arson schools program but<00
• schools program but this year 27 for our schools program but this would<00:14:52.480> help<00:
• the Arts for the Artists in the Schools program.

Bills: HB2437, HB2461, HB2604, HB2605, HB1860, HB2001

Keywords: arts education, student engagement, cultural literacy, public schools, funding, public art, cultural preservation, community identity, art management, performing arts, ticket surcharge, arts funding, education, community support, therapeutic arts, neurodiverse, autism, attention-deficit disorder, underserved communities, mental health

Summary: The Committee on Culture and the Arts heard several measures focused on arts funding, public art, performing arts, and libraries. HB 2437 would appropriate funds for the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts’ Artists in the Schools program; the Foundation testified in strong support, explaining that demand has increased and that additional funding would allow more schools to be served. HB 2461 would raise the ceiling for the works of art special fund and provide money for maintenance and a collections manager position; the Foundation supported it and described major conservation needs, including large-scale repairs to public artworks such as the Tadashi Sato work in Hilo and the King Kamehameha statue, as well as ongoing bronze maintenance and new commissions affected by rising materials costs. HB 2604 would create a performing arts ticket surcharge; the Attorney General and Department of Taxation raised drafting and administration concerns, while the State Foundation supported the concept. HB 2605 would create a position to coordinate specialized arts programs and therapeutic arts interventions for underserved neurodivergent populations, and the Foundation supported that measure as well. HB 1860 would designate the Hawaii Symphony Orchestra as the state symphony orchestra and require annual reports; the Attorney General suggested clarifying the public purpose, and the Symphony, youth symphony, and many community supporters testified in favor, emphasizing educational, cultural, and civic benefits. HB 20001 would designate the first Friday in February as Love My Library Day; the State Public Library System, Friends of the Library, and individual testifiers strongly supported it, describing libraries as essential community and educational resources. After hearing testimony, the committee took action on several bills. HB 2437 was recommended for passage with amendments in HD1, with the appropriation blanked out and the additional needed funding to be noted for Finance consideration; the vote was unanimous among members present. HB 2604 was also recommended for passage with HD1 and technical amendments, including deleting the term “Hawaii-based,” clarifying that student performances at public charter schools are exempt, aligning recordkeeping provisions with tax law, and setting an effective date of January 1, 2027. HB 2461 was deferred to decision-making on Friday, February 13. The transcript also indicates the committee moved through the remaining measures after testimony, but the excerpt ends before final votes are shown for HB 2605, HB 1860, and HB 20001.

Transcript Highlights:

• or schools a school district can pay tuition to under our school town tuition program.
• under our school uh town tuition<00:07:06.160> program.
• What Act 73 contains is a change to that model to move to a foundation formula where school districts
• I mean, it's pretty significant in terms of what are all the costs in the foundation formula if school
• formula if uh costs in the foundation formula if uh school<00:45:15.920> meals<00:45:16.319><

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The meeting was a high-level walkthrough of Act 73, with staff from Legislative Council and the Joint Fiscal Office summarizing major education policy, governance, tax, and fiscal changes. The presentation covered class-size minimums and related enforcement, creation of a state aid for school construction program, narrowed tuition eligibility for approved independent schools, changes to State Board of Education appointments, special education reporting and staffing, and a new report on standards for schools deemed small or sparse by necessity. It also noted that some provisions take effect immediately or in 2025, while the major funding and tax changes are contingent on new school districts being operational and a foundation formula report being received, with most of those changes targeted for July 1, 2028. The central fiscal change described was a move from the current locally voted budget and varying homestead tax system to a foundation formula. Under that model, districts would receive an educational opportunity payment based on a base amount per pupil, adjusted by student weights for factors such as pre-K, economic disadvantage, English learner status, and special education, with small-school and sparsity weights replaced by support grants. Districts could still seek limited supplemental district spending above the foundation amount, subject to a cap and a uniform method for raising the funds, with excess collections recaptured at the state level. The presenters also described transition mechanisms to phase in the new system over several years. The tax section explained that Act 73 would replace the current property tax credit with a homestead exemption and create a new non-homestead residential classification intended for second homes and short-term rentals, though further statutory or regulatory work would still be needed to implement it. The JFO presentation emphasized that the act also creates regional assessment districts for reappraisals and includes a transition to smooth changes in education tax rates. No committee vote or formal action was taken during the presentation; it was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• School of Cinematic Arts programs, can do.
• ACM programs and the school of cinematic ACM programs and the school of cinematic art<00:07:26.879>
• <00:41:16.560> they school they went to or what program they school they went to or what program
• the monies are either going to the Foundation or whether it’s going to actual productions or schools?
• It went to the foundation. And then whomever is—so it says HCC Mele Program specifically.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And when we short the foundation formula, what it ultimately means is it's not the school districts in
• School District, the Maplewood-Richmond Heights School District, and the Ladue School District.
• I'm one that supports public schools. I was a public school kid. I support public schools.
• school, a private school, or homeschool.
• Do you think that a school district in our state, or not a district, a school, do you think a school

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, approval of the previous day’s journal, and a series of special guest introductions recognizing family members, interns, students, public servants, and community advocates. Committee reports and Senate messages followed, including Senate refusals to concur on a large number of amendments to Senate Bill 1421 and the appointment of a conference committee on House Bill 2818. The main floor action centered on the state budget, especially House Bill 2 (public education). The budget chair explained the conference report’s funding mix for K-12 schools, including $8.4 billion for public education, changes to the foundation formula, use of blind pension funds, and possible ARPA dollars later in the process. Members debated whether the report underfunded schools by $45 million or more, with opponents arguing the state was not fully funding the formula and supporters saying total school funding remained at record levels and that the issue was the source of funds rather than the total amount. A substitute motion to send HB 2 back to conference failed 62-89, and the conference report was then adopted 83-68; the bill was third read and passed 83-68. The House then took up House Bill 2003 on higher education, where the conference report largely restored the governor’s recommendation and directed the department to develop a new funding formula by the end of the year. Members discussed performance-based funding, scholarships, apprenticeships, and the need for a slower transition to any new model. The conference report passed 119-28, and the bill was third read and passed 109-32. House Bill 2004, covering Revenue and Transportation, included about $20 million for rural roads and other transportation funding; members discussed constitutional concerns, MoDOT projects, and a small local safety fix. The conference report passed 128-21, and the bill was third read and passed 127-27.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm from the EST Foundation and the Mel MS program. First, mahalo for our Mel MS program.
• our high school aviation mechanic program.
• > Mahalo school aviation mechanic program Mahalo school aviation mechanic program Mahalo for<01
• > uh Charter School foundation not present uh Charter School foundation not present uh imua<02
• <04:10:19.880> Maui inclusion programs at 30 schools on Maui inclusion programs at 30 schools

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint Ways and Means and Finance informational briefing on grants and aids was held February 14 and was organized as a high-volume public testimony session with strict procedures: no Q&A, one representative per applicant, one minute per testimony, in-person testimony first, and then Zoom participants. The chairs also announced a recess at 11:00 a.m. for floor sessions and a reconvening at 1:00 p.m. Testimony was heard first from neighbor island applicants, then Oʻahu applicants, with members repeatedly directing speakers to line up and keep remarks brief. Neighbor island testimony focused on a wide range of capital and operating requests. Health and community projects included Hawaii Island Community Health Center’s workforce housing in Kau, Wuli Hawaiian Homestead Association’s learning center and predevelopment work, Rescue Tube Foundation’s beach rescue tube expansion, Puna Community Medical Center’s planned hospital/ER campus, Maui Humane Society’s free veterinary care after the wildfires, Hawaiʻi Care Choices’ palliative care readiness, and the Lyman Museum’s HVAC replacement. Other requests included the Maui Advanced Manufacturing Alliance’s Pāʻia Mill redevelopment, Laua 2020’s preschool and learning lab, Mālama Aina’s USDA-compliant meat processing facility, the Hawaiian Lifeguard Association’s water safety programs, Kaha P Organization’s agriculture education support, Ohana Arts’ youth performance project, Friends of the Children’s Justice Center’s emergency closet, EOA Pacific’s Marshall Islands teacher training, and the Central Pacific Youth Athletic Club’s new facility. Oʻahu testimony included the YWCA Oʻahu/Pythink Center’s renovation of Juliet M. Atherton Hall and its community kitchen, West Oʻahu Community Health Center’s wildfire protection and security needs, the Early School’s playground improvements, Surfing the Nations’ food distribution center expansion, and Sounding Joy Music Therapy’s weekly services for people with disabilities. Speakers generally emphasized community benefit, workforce development, health access, food security, disaster recovery, and support for children, seniors, and underserved populations. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the briefing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And when we short the foundation formula, what it ultimately means is it's not the school districts..
• And when we short the foundation formula, what it ultimately means is it's not the school districts,
• Brentwood School District, the MRH School District, and the Ladue School District.
• school, a private school or homeschool.
• But no, not a public school. A private school.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and approval of the prior day’s journal by a 107-1 roll call vote. Members then spent a substantial portion of the morning introducing guests, including family members, students, interns, nonprofit representatives, a park ranger recognized for life-saving work, and legislative staff being honored for service or graduation. Committee reports and Senate messages followed, including Senate refusals to concur on several amendments to Senate Bill 1421 and the appointment of a conference committee on House Bill 2818. The main floor debate centered on the conference committee report for House Bill 2002, the K-12 education budget. The budget chair explained that the report maintained record-level overall funding for the foundation formula but changed the mix of funding sources, including a reduction in capital commission dollars and use of blind pension funds, with possible later ARPA dollars to offset shortfalls. Several members argued the bill still underfunded schools by about $190 million and raised concerns about relying on projected or one-time funds; others defended the budget as meeting or exceeding constitutional requirements and noted record spending per pupil and recent increases in education funding. A substitute motion to send the bill back to conference failed 62-89, and the conference report was then adopted 83-68; the bill was subsequently third read and passed 83-68. The House then adopted and passed House Bill 2003, the higher education budget, by 119-28 on adoption and 109-32 on third reading. Debate there focused on restoring the governor’s recommended funding while directing higher education institutions to develop a new performance-based funding formula by the end of the year. Members generally described the compromise as a step toward a more sustainable model while preserving current funding levels. Next, House Bill 2004, covering the Departments of Revenue and Transportation, was adopted 128-21 and passed 127-27; discussion highlighted transportation funding, rural roads, and a small local safety appropriation that had already been addressed by MoDOT. The House then began debate on House Bill 2005, the Office of Administration budget, with members emphasizing IT accountability, state employee functions, and ongoing technology consolidation/deconsolidation issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• with our pharmacy school.
• with our pharmacy school.
• with our pharmacy school.
• with our pharmacy school.
• , but no vet-specific program?

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The meeting covered several Senate resolutions related to the University of Hawaiʻi system, the East-West Center, and related education and workforce issues. On SCR 178 and SR 48, testifiers strongly supported the East-West Center, describing it as an important Hawaii asset that promotes cultural exchange, global citizenship, diplomacy, and ties to the University of Hawaiʻi. Speakers said the Center has helped train leaders and bring international connections and investment to Hawaii, and they urged continued funding despite federal cuts. The chairs then recommended passage with technical amendments, and both resolutions were adopted by the committees. The committee also heard testimony on resolutions calling for audits of University of Hawaiʻi operations. On SR 32 and SCR 50, the University of Hawaiʻi said it supported the resolution and had already begun work on establishing a Bachelor of Science in nursing at the UH Maui campus, with additional staff available on Zoom to answer questions. On SR 160 and SCR 142, which sought a financial and performance audit of UH Mānoa facilities, UH Athletics said it already undergoes annual financial audits required by NCAA bylaws but not performance audits, and discussed its internal evaluations, contingency planning, and efforts to address concerns raised by student athletes and staff. The committee then took up SCR 138 and SR 55, requesting a management and performance audit of the UH Office of the Vice President for Academic Strategy. Vice President Deborah Halbert and P20 Director Steve Shotz said they did not oppose the audit and believed it could provide clarity, while explaining that the office is relatively new and works collaboratively across campuses on articulation, transfer, grants, and workforce alignment. They described grant programs including Perkins, GEAR UP, preschool development, and data-sharing efforts, and said they are focusing more resources on teaching, health care, and skilled trades. The discussion also touched on SR 54, a proposed performance audit of the UH Foundation, where foundation representatives said they already undergo annual financial audits, acknowledged some donor communication issues, but emphasized improved stewardship and growth in fundraising over recent years.

Transcript Highlights:

• program that we're sending out to local school districts.
• Foundation program the way it is and not address the student need challenges that we have.
• This is kind of a visual representation of our current Foundation program.
• That obviously reduces the initial complexity since the Foundation program is already in place.
• That existing Foundation program would kind of be the base for the student weights.

Keywords: 1136, house, all