Transcript Highlights:

• evaluation.
• evaluation.
• evaluation.
• evaluation.
• evaluation.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened with Senate Bill 22-FN, which would expand child care licensing background checks so the Department of Health and Human Services can receive fuller criminal history information, including pending charges and other non-conviction records, similar to the system already used for school staff. Grant Bossi, for Senator Pearl, and DHHS officials Melissa Clement and Christine Sheay testified in support, saying the bill closes a gap that can allow people with disqualifying charges to work with children. They explained that the FBI record is a snapshot in time, that juvenile records are not included, and that the bill would apply to child care programs including residential group homes. Questions focused on what “confidential criminal history” means and how often checks are repeated; DHHS said checks are done every five years or sooner if new charge information is received. The hearing on SB 22 was then closed. The committee then took up Senate Bill 23-FN, which would expand the child endangerment statute and remove the word “purposely” from part of the language. Senator Pat Long said the bill is intended to strengthen protection for children and allow more serious conduct to be charged appropriately. Testimony from law enforcement, including Executive Counselor Dave Wheeler, Sergeant Ryan Rooney of Nashua Police, and Nicholas Georgulis of Manchester Police, supported the bill as a way to distinguish routine misdemeanor cases from the most egregious abuse and neglect cases, such as children living in squalor or being exposed to severe danger. Wheeler and some members raised concerns that the language could be vague or overbroad and cited a prior Manchester firearm-in-a-car arrest as an example of possible unintended consequences; supporters responded that the bill still requires knowingly violating a duty of care and that the serious bodily injury or death standard limits its reach. Rooney also described a fentanyl overdose case involving an 11-year-old and said the current misdemeanor charge did not fully reflect the seriousness of the conduct. The committee recessed SB 23 briefly to open and close SB 161, then returned to SB 23, which remained under hearing with no final vote taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• child care evaluation.
• So we're proposing... ...to double the size of the program evaluation staff from four to eight evaluators
• and program evaluations had done them.
• and program evaluations had done them.
• These program evaluators.

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:

• program evaluation on SNAP administration and performance.
• And then lastly, we'll evaluate program integrity.
• So during the evaluation process, we'll be digging into this.
• Is that going to be part of the evaluation that we do? Mr.
• I'm a new program evaluator for the LFC.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:28:02.799> Right the site evaluation committee. Right the site evaluation committee.
• establishing a site evaluation establishing a site evaluation committee.<01:11:48.320> I<
• Um this is evaluation committee.
• evaluation committee.
• hub of the site evaluation committee. hub of the site evaluation committee.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Evaluations, these certified evaluations, is a completely different topic.
• <00:02:11.520> the often in terms of evaluating the often in terms of evaluating the teacher
• <00:03:22.239> these<00:03:22.480> certified<00:03:23.080> evaluations evaluations
• these certified evaluations evaluations these certified evaluations is<00:03:23.920> a<00:03:
• They'd be put on an improvement plan so that, you know, they are evaluated more.

Keywords: This Live stream had a technical issue part way through and will be loaded fully later today., 958, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 48, which would reduce the state-required formal observation cycle for tenured teachers from once every three years to once every five years, while preserving local district authority to conduct more frequent observations if they choose. Supporters argued the change would cut paperwork and time burdens on experienced teachers and principals, while still allowing districts to monitor performance and place teachers on improvement plans when needed. Members also discussed the bill’s separate provisions on school improvement plans, with clarification that CSI/TSI low-performing schools would still be required to maintain comprehensive improvement plans and receive additional support from KDE, and that the bill was not changing the evaluation system for those schools. A second major topic was professional development and teacher induction/mentoring requirements. The bill would consolidate state-mandated PD requirements into a rotational schedule for tenured teachers, and members noted that teachers are already subject to federal and local PD obligations that the legislature cannot change. Several speakers emphasized that the bill was intended to reduce state-level mandates, not eliminate useful supports for new teachers, and one member raised concern that mandatory induction/mentoring could limit districts’ ability to use Title II funds; the response was that the program remains valuable and should be revisited with dedicated funding rather than discarded. There was also a brief question about suicide prevention hotline and Safe Haven Baby Box posting language, which was explained as existing statute consolidated into one place. The committee then voted on the bill and it passed, with members offering brief explanations of support and noting frustration with recurring annual training requirements such as bloodborne pathogens. After the vote, members thanked the bill sponsors and educators who helped shape the legislation, and the chair announced weekly office hours in Room 367. The meeting ended with congratulations to the new K-12 chair and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• > six Of these eight evaluations, six Of these eight evaluations, six evaluations<00:09:38.560
• evaluations were completed. evaluations were completed.
• I think there's evaluation.
• those closeout evaluations are current. those closeout evaluations are current.
• So, at that point, a closeout<01:05:12.400> evaluation closeout evaluation closeout evaluation

Bills: HF3564

Keywords: Greater Minnesota, regional parks, trails, grants, local government, 1183, house

Summary: The Legacy Finance Committee met to approve the prior meeting minutes and then heard a presentation from the Office of the Legislative Auditor on its performance audit of the Department of Natural Resources’ administration of Outdoor Heritage Fund grants. OLA explained that the DNR generally complied with the criteria tested, but the audit identified two main problem areas: grant payments and grant monitoring. The audit covered 13 grants, mostly legislatively named grants awarded in fiscal year 2020, and reviewed agreements, amendments, payments, monitoring, and some site visits. OLA reported that for three grantees, totaling about $400,000, invoices lacked enough detail to determine whether costs were allowable, and about $5,000 was paid to two grantees without sufficient supporting documentation. The auditors also said DNR lacked policies defining allowable costs and what “directly related to and necessary” means under state law. On monitoring, DNR missed required annual visits for six grants, made payments on current progress reports that were missing or not on file, and had weaknesses in closeout evaluations, including missing required elements, late completion, and two grants with no closeout evaluation at all. OLA recommended stronger documentation, clearer guidelines with the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council, timely monitoring and closeout, obtaining progress reports before payment, and improved internal controls. Members reacted strongly to the findings, especially the repeated failures to follow grant procedures and the risks of legislatively named grants and advance payments. Representative Heintzeman and Vice Chair Skraba questioned whether the issues reflected broader problems in state grant oversight and asked about prepayments, follow-up, and whether more legislative action was needed. OLA officials said they do not rely on self-attestation, but instead retest agencies after 2 to 3 years, and noted a new annual update-report process that will track whether agencies implement prior recommendations. Judy Randall, the Legislative Auditor, said the laws and policies already exist and emphasized that the issue is ensuring agency staff follow them; she also said most recommendations in the recent update report had been implemented. No further committee action or vote was taken on the audit during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that was on oral evaluation and prophylaxis and cleaning.
• One is oral evaluation for children.
• This is what CMS says, so this is what we're being evaluated against.
• Our oral evaluation rate is around 50%.
• So they have a 4% oral evaluation rate compared to the 17.5%.

Keywords: 962, all

Summary: The MAPOC Women and Children’s Health Subcommittee heard a presentation from Kate Parker Riley, executive director of the Connecticut Dental Health Partnership, on the Husky Dental Program and efforts to improve oral health during pregnancy. She reviewed the structure of Connecticut’s Medicaid dental benefit, the ASO model, provider network, utilization trends, and member barriers to care. She noted that children’s dental measures remain above the national median, but adult utilization is lower and the dental provider network has been shrinking, with longer wait times in rural areas. A major focus was the state’s goal to raise the rate of oral evaluation during pregnancy from about 17.5% to 25% by 2030. Riley described planned outreach to OB/GYN practices using a draft “snapshot” report showing each practice’s pregnancy oral-health rate compared with the state average, along with education materials based on ACOG and AAP guidance. Committee members and guests discussed barriers such as lack of provider training, workflow burden, access to dentists who will see pregnant patients, and the need for stronger referral bridges. Suggestions included adding simple oral-health screening questions in OB settings, using human support to make appointments, and exploring co-located dental hygienists or other embedded models. Riley also highlighted partnerships with DSS, DCF, Head Start, WIC, Read to Grow, YMCA programs, refugee resettlement agencies, and school-based and hospital partners, as well as data-sharing and navigation efforts. She said pregnant members newly identified through HUSKY will now receive outreach and navigation support. DSS dental director Carolyn MacArthur introduced herself and said she supports the initiative, noting the literature linking untreated maternal dental disease to poor child oral-health outcomes. No votes were taken; the meeting ended with thanks and a preview of upcoming July presentations on integrated behavioral health and home visitation programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• evaluators, and there's one checkered box.
• child care evaluation.
• So we're proposing to double the size of the program evaluation staff from four to eight evaluators and
• and program evaluations had done them.
• These program evaluators.

Summary: The Legislative Procedures and Arrangements Committee met with a quorum and approved the minutes from the previous meeting. The committee first considered and adopted a Joint Rule 211 change clarifying the deadline and statutory references for bill drafts involving health insurance mandates, after discussion that the process is still somewhat cumbersome but improved by the clarification. The committee then reviewed a revised draft addressing confidentiality protections for certain legislators and candidates, but members expressed concerns about the breadth, enforceability, and transparency implications of the proposal, and the committee chose not to advance it at this time. The committee received an informational update on the new NCSL Legislator Security Fund. Staff explained that North Dakota is applying for the grant, which could provide about $200 per legislator for home security or related safety expenses, subject to Emergency Commission approval and reimbursement procedures. Members asked about eligible expenses, administrative burden, and whether new legislators would be covered; staff said guidance would be provided if funding is approved. The committee also approved the 2027 timing for the State of the Judiciary, tribal-state relationship message, and State of the State address on January 5, and set the Commerce Department and agricultural commodity reports for January 13 and 14, respectively, as required by statute. A major portion of the meeting focused on legislative staffing and organizational planning. The committee approved a recommendation for 36 Senate staff positions and 41 House staff positions, along with a 3% compensation increase for session staff. Discussion centered on replacing some procedural clerk duties with permanent policy analyst staff, retaining quality assurance roles for now, and adding or repurposing positions in IT, program evaluation, legal, and administration. Members also discussed expanding program evaluation capacity and the need for clearer oversight of new programs, with staff noting upcoming training and model-sharing with other states. Finally, the committee reviewed a proposed new legislator orientation day on November 30 and broader organizational session training changes, including mock committee and floor sessions, security training, and more robust budget/appropriations instruction, but took no final action on the agenda items and adjourned after completing the budget-related recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• He wasn't going to allow me to seek my own evaluation or take my doctor's evaluation.
• or take my doctor's evaluation it had to be his chosen doctor you have to me. evaluation or take my
• doctor's evaluation.
• They do an evaluation. The evaluations are nothing but lies.
• His medical evaluation. Psychiatric evaluation with competency. Oh, okay.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The administration is evaluating this.
• A formal evaluation is being conducted by Mathematica, as Dr.
• So there will be a formal evaluation, and the interim evaluation report is just what came out, evaluating
• As has been referenced here, an interim evaluation has been put forth.
• With individual evaluation partners for additional, more focused evaluations on the work that's happening

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• evaluators, and there's one checkered box.
• child care evaluation.
• So we're proposing to double the size of the program evaluation staff from four to eight evaluators and
• and program evaluations had done them.
• and program evaluations had done them.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the site evaluation committee to seek<00:24:34.559> additional<00:24:35.039> fees<00:24
• being available to the site evaluation being available to the site evaluation committee.<00:25:04.559
• <00:25:38.960> committee, solid waste site evaluation committee, solid waste site evaluation
• a major role on this site evaluation a major role on this site evaluation committee.<00:25:49.200
• > committee<00:25:52.240> processes the site evaluation committee processes the site evaluation

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Today we have one performance audit by the state auditor, which is evaluating how charter schools identify
• The state auditor's office is evaluating how charter schools identify and support at-risk students.
• In general, the results of our audit reflected positively on the schools that we evaluated.
• We didn't end up evaluating that as part of this audit.
• That we looked at, we didn't end up evaluating that as part of this audit. I appreciate that.

Summary: The committee meeting began with a brief explanation of the renamed Joint Legislative Audit Review Committee subcommittee, now called the Committee to Hear SAO Performance Audits, and a presentation from the State Auditor’s Office on its current biennium performance audit work plan. The auditor described how topics are selected from a large pool of potential audits and highlighted several ongoing or planned audits, including the Liquor and Cannabis Board, oversight of authorized entities serving students with disabilities, the Quality Home Care Initiative, Medicaid managed care versus fee-for-service costs, the Housing Commission tenant ownership follow-up, DSHS vendor payment patterns, implementation of the Since Time Memorial curriculum, and the Washington State ferry system. Members asked about coordination with JLARC to avoid duplication, and the auditor said the offices exchange work plans, monthly updates, and quarterly coordination meetings. The committee then heard the State Auditor’s performance audit on how charter schools identify and support at-risk students. Auditors reviewed four charter schools—Catalyst Public Schools, Innovation High School, Pinnacles Prep, and Rainier Prep—and focused on English language learners, homeless students, and special education students. The audit found the schools met nearly all legal requirements reviewed, with only one area where two schools partially met a language-access requirement. The schools also used several promising practices, including small-group instruction, culturally responsive environments, and multi-tiered systems of support, though the auditors recommended better documentation of procedures to improve consistency. Families interviewed generally reported positive experiences, while noting resource constraints. Committee members asked about how the four schools were selected, whether the audit compared charter populations to home districts, and how MTSS requirements applied to the schools reviewed. The State Auditor’s Office said the sample was chosen for geographic diversity, student population characteristics, and representation from both authorizers, and that K-2 MTSS requirements were not evaluated because they applied to only one school. Representatives from the Charter School Commission and charter school advocates responded positively, emphasizing technical assistance, collaboration, and sharing best practices across schools. Two public testifiers also supported the report and said it highlighted effective practices that could be expanded across charter and traditional public schools.

Transcript Highlights:

• authorizer performance evaluation authorizer performance evaluation system.<00:02:09.360> Um<
• :35.760> of<00:03:35.920> the oversight, and evaluation of the oversight, and evaluation
• evaluation system. evaluation system. uh<00:10:03.120> statute<00:10:03.600> also<
• Um that is a prerequisite evaluation.
• <00:19:18.240> authorizer uh achievement and evaluating authorizer uh achievement and evaluating

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:

• . evaluations. evaluations.
• judicial evaluation judicial evaluation uh<00:18:42.080> system.
• evaluation?
• evaluations meet this goal. evaluations meet this goal.
• Evaluation during two consecutive evaluations. Any... nip it at the bud.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Do you like review better or evaluate? evaluate? evaluate? >> Evaluate. >> Evaluate.
• >> Evaluate.
• >> Evaluates<00:13:50.560> just<00:13:50.720> fine >> Evaluates just fine &
• >> So<00:14:03.600> evaluate >> So evaluate >> So evaluate >> evaluate
• need<00:14:26.399> evaluation you need evaluation you need evaluation on<00:14:28.240>

Bills: SF0020, SF0021, SF0022

Keywords: data privacy, government accountability, personal data, data retention, resident rights, stable token, liquidity, trust account, Wyoming, fund distribution, financial regulation, state commission, decentralized, nonprofit association, merger, conversion, liability, membership, governance, indemnification

Transcript Highlights:

• Evaluations, right?
• He wasn't going to allow me to seek my own evaluation or take my doctor's evaluation.
• doctor's evaluation.
• They do an evaluation. The evaluations are nothing but lies.
• His medical evaluation. Psychiatric evaluation with competency. I reviewed it.

Summary: The Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Elder Abuse opened by explaining it was gathering testimony on elder abuse, especially alleged misconduct involving court-appointed systems such as guardians ad litem and fiduciaries, to identify gaps in law and oversight and develop legislative fixes. The chair limited each witness’s time, asked for names and contact information for follow-up, and repeatedly noted that some allegations might warrant referral to law enforcement, the attorney general, or county attorneys if basic criminal elements were present. Several witnesses described alleged abuse in guardianship, conservatorship, and fiduciary cases. Dr. Holly Lauder said her mother, who had Alzheimer’s disease, was subjected to allegedly deficient psychological capacity evaluations that ignored treating doctors and family input, leading to a fiduciary arrangement that later resulted in neglect. Kevin Axson described his mother’s probate case, saying a guardian ad litem and conservator were appointed after a family financial dispute, that the guardian ad litem and fiduciary had little contact with his mother, and that the estate was burdened with substantial fees and a $200,000 bond requirement. Frieda Alvarado testified about a 94-year-old client, Samuel Armento, saying he was isolated, medicated without his request, and treated without dignity after a fiduciary and care team took control. Bill Chalmers, Johnny Hamilton, and Kathy Hamilton also testified about Sam Armento’s case, alleging isolation, excessive fees, conflicts of interest, and poor oversight by fiduciaries and caregivers. Other witnesses raised broader concerns about Arizona probate practices. David Redkey said he has been under a long-running conservatorship despite earning degrees and maintaining capacity, and alleged that court-appointed professionals and fiduciaries overcharged his estate and blocked efforts to terminate the arrangement. Susan Wolfe described the Peyton case, alleging that a wife’s conservatorship and related court actions led to the loss of assets, exclusion of witnesses, and large fees for a relatively small monthly care bill. Dr. Lewis Heller, an OB-GYN and disciplinary committee member, said the medical evaluations he reviewed showed the people involved were competent and that the conduct he observed was unethical and possibly criminal. Renee Self testified that she lost her role as trustee and spent large sums defending her father’s estate, alleging that the probate process stripped her father of assets and limited her access to him despite APS findings that her actions were in his best interests. No formal committee votes or legislative actions were taken in the excerpt, but members repeatedly expressed concern, asked for documents and transcripts, and indicated they would follow up with witnesses and consider stakeholder meetings to craft legislation addressing oversight, transparency, and accountability in guardianship and fiduciary systems.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our audit did not evaluate, and nor were we asked to, evaluate the costs to the department if they were
• I do have a graphic of all of the products that we evaluated.
• I do have a graphic of all of the products that we evaluated.
• “Of our evaluation of products, the lion's share of the products we evaluated had no design elements
• I do have a graphic of all of the products that we evaluated.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit Committee heard an audit on the Department of Cannabis Control’s oversight of cannabis packaging and labeling, focused on whether products attractive to children are being kept out of the legal market. The auditor said the department’s rules are often vague or subjective, leading to inconsistent enforcement, and that the state relies heavily on licensees to self-police because there is no upfront review before products reach the market. The audit cited examples involving cartoon-like images, bright colors, flavor references, candy-like imagery, strain names, and beverage packaging, and recommended clearer statutory standards, possible pre-approval of packaging, better enforcement tools, and stronger tracking of repeat violators. Assemblymembers and senators largely agreed that child safety is the priority, but differed on the best policy response. Some members argued for clearer legislative limits and even plain packaging, saying products like root beer, cherry pie, and cereal-like designs are plainly appealing to children. Department officials said they had already begun reforms, including a centralized label-review team, a rubric, improved databases, and more attention to repeat violations, while also emphasizing that the illicit and intoxicating hemp markets are major sources of youth exposure and that resource constraints limit inspections. They said they are open to working with the Legislature on more specific standards and additional funding. Public witnesses split between public health and industry perspectives. A pediatrician and public health advocate urged stronger restrictions, including plain packaging, limits on flavors and potency, and a pre-market review system, arguing that vague rules have failed children. Industry representatives said they support youth protections but want bright-line, objective standards so compliant businesses can know what is allowed; they argued that most youth-targeted packaging is in the illicit market and that the legal market needs clearer rules rather than broader bans. No formal vote or committee action was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And an evaluation of that should also be included.
• Our program evaluators are here today to provide an update on the Child Care Services Program evaluation
• Our program evaluators are here today to provide an update on the Child Care Services Program evaluation
• The purpose of the program evaluation...
• like program evaluation to return to these type of evaluations, and that's a conversation that's probably

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• gt;> That would be an evaluation for the jury,<00:53:33.920> an<00:53:34.079> evaluation
• They evaluate what staff they can use. They evaluate the facts of the law.
• They evaluate what staff they can use. They evaluate the facts of the law.
• They evaluate what staff they can use. They evaluate the facts of the law.
• They evaluate what staff they can use. They evaluate the facts of the law.

Keywords: 1136, house, all