Transcript Highlights:

• So constituents consistently reach out to our office to report extensive delays in processing claims,
• were changes made and are being made within the Department of Unemployment Assistance and their processes
• A thorough look into these processes to improve basic and vital government functions, helping many of
• So many families across the Commonwealth rely on it, and when it's not being processed in a timely manner
• The increase in the backlogs led to significant delays in decisions and processing claims.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development held a hearing on House 5188, a late-filed bill to establish a special commission to study access to unemployment insurance in Massachusetts. Representatives Hadley Luddy and Joshua Tarski, the bill’s sponsors, said they filed it after seeing many constituent cases involving delays, unresolved claims, and difficulty navigating the unemployment system, especially for seasonal workers and others facing financial instability. They argued the commission should review claim data, gather stakeholder input, and identify gaps in the process so the system is more efficient, equitable, and transparent. Greater Boston Legal Services testified in support, describing numerous client cases in which claimants waited months for determinations or were stuck in limbo after the launch of a new online benefits system. Attorneys said DUA’s backlogs and timeliness metrics had worsened, citing large increases in non-monetary, separation, and hearings backlogs, and they urged the committee to consider systemic fixes, including better notice about paid family and medical leave and possibly more funding or staff for DUA. Committee members generally praised the bill and the sponsors’ collaboration, and one suggested the commission’s reporting deadline might need to be extended. No vote was taken during the hearing. After testimony and brief discussion, the chair closed the hearing and concluded the committee meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• And now we have to talk about the building standards process.
• What is so detrimental I think about the co-development process is very few people understand it.
• First, there's a big difference between the triennial process, which is a very methodical, thorough process
• It is going through the policy process. I know that you are going to continue to meet with.
• and creating consistency across the process.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There's a process here that we legislate every year.
• But what we've learned through this process...
• Do you all see, or do you have a process to kind of snuff Do you all see or do you have a process to
• And so, you know, we have to start this process.
• So there is a process for that.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held an informational hearing on the state capital outlay process, with Roger Husser and Matt Baker of the Division of Administration’s Office of Facilities Planning and Control (FPNC) presenting a detailed review of House Bill 2 and proposed improvements. They said FPNC administers about 54% of the bill, while other agencies administer the rest, and emphasized that the capital outlay program has improved significantly over the last few years, with project expenditures more than doubling due to better cash-flow management, staffing changes, and more efficient project administration. They also explained how the bill is structured by priorities, how the priority-one cash line of credit is capped and adjusted for construction inflation, and how the bill has grown into a much larger, longer-range plan than a true five-year program, especially on the non-state side. A major theme was that the bill contains too many dormant, legacy, and low-priority projects, which creates false expectations and ties up funding. Committee members pressed the presenters on culture change, third-party project management, staffing shortages, and the use of technology and statutory interpretation to speed projects without sacrificing compliance. Husser and Baker said they had reduced internal bureaucracy, used staff augmentation because of hiring difficulties, delegated smaller projects to agencies when appropriate, and improved cash-flow analysis so projects can move forward with less money up front. They also discussed overappropriations, dormant projects, and the need to reappropriate unused funds to projects that can actually spend them. The presenters offered several recommendations and considerations: limit the number and size of new projects, reduce scope creep, require more regular endorsement of long-running projects, consider caps on priority-five funding, impose time limits and reporting requirements on non-state grant projects, and possibly require non-state entities to escrow or otherwise demonstrate their match earlier. They also suggested bundling related projects together, expanding that approach beyond the current pilot, and improving transparency by showing full project funding history and the first year each project appeared in the bill. No votes were taken, and the meeting remained informational, with members generally supportive of the efficiency reforms while also raising concerns about false hope, dormant projects, and the need for clearer expectations and accountability.

Transcript Highlights:

• and understanding what was good processing and what wasn't so much good processing.
• <00:01:03.400> and<00:01:04.040> and up with the the processing and and up with the
• > good<00:01:05.280> processing understanding what was good processing understanding what
• ><00:01:06.720> much<00:01:06.920> good<00:01:07.080> processing.
• and what wasn't so much good processing. and what wasn't so much good processing.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So that process remains the same. They did. Two-year period, too, right? Rebecca: That is correct.
• And, Rebecca, we were really trying to just simplify this process, wasn't it?
• And Rebecca, we were really trying to just simplify this process, wasn't it?
• So those would be live use cases as we get additional ones that they would follow this process.
• So those would be live use cases as we get additional ones that they would follow this process.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The conference committee on HB 1248 met to review differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, which concerns the PERS pilot program and insurance mandate process. Rebecca Frickie, executive director of PERS, explained that the Senate version removed the House provisions repealing the insurance mandate process, kept the two-year PERS pilot intact, and preserved the requirement for a report at the end of the pilot while removing language that would have required PERS to submit a bill to expand coverage to the commercial market. Members discussed the bill’s cost-benefit analysis requirements. Frickie said the current law triggers a cost-benefit analysis at the start of the pilot and again when a bill is introduced to roll coverage out commercially, but the Senate draft would change that to only one analysis at the end of the pilot if a rollout bill is introduced. Legislative Council indicated that if the committee wants that simplified approach, additional conforming changes are needed elsewhere in the code. Senators also asked about the purpose of the initial analysis and whether it is used beyond being attached to the bill packet; Frickie said PERS relies primarily on its own actuary and was not aware of broader use. The committee discussed whether the revised process would still require legislative sponsorship for any future rollout, and Frickie confirmed that a legislator or other sponsor would need to introduce such a bill. Examples mentioned included insulin caps and breast exams as possible future pilot items. The committee agreed to request Legislative Council draft the needed language changes and planned to reconvene after receiving the updated draft; no final vote was taken and the meeting was adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• A piece of that too: a recent change in our way that we process our capital budget request.
• So making some refinements to our process there.
• A piece of that too, a recent change in our way that we process our capital budget request.
• So making some refinements to our process there.
• And if not now, if you could send that back to us as it's moving through the process.

Summary: The committee held a work session on the state of Washington’s community and technical college system with State Board executive director Nate Humphrey and Tacoma Community College president Ivan Harrell. They described the system’s open-access mission, 34 colleges serving more than 307,000 students, relatively low tuition, enrollment growth over 12 consecutive quarters, and strong outcomes such as more than 46,000 credentials awarded last year. They also highlighted system initiatives including guided pathways, I-BEST, dual enrollment, tribal partnerships, a new program search tool, and six colleges named Aspen Prize finalists. At the same time, they emphasized major challenges: high rates of student food, housing, and homelessness insecurity; sharply rising emergency aid requests; and federal funding disruptions affecting TANF, BFET, adult basic education, Carl Perkins, NOAA-related tribal work, and several federal grants. Members asked about SNAP impacts, declining high school graduates, and how BFET and TANF interact with other aid programs. The presenters also discussed system priorities such as AI, Workforce Pell, capital planning, nursing accreditation alignment, and the Washington College Grant. The committee then heard testimony from AFT Washington and the Washington Association of Higher Education on faculty and staff conditions in the community and technical college system. Jackie Kane and Suzanne Sutherland argued that classified staff, professional staff, and contingent faculty are essential to student success but face low pay, instability, and weak retention, and they urged lawmakers to protect existing funding and avoid further cuts. They said working conditions for faculty and staff are student learning conditions, and that underfunding leads to reduced services, shortened advising, and program instability. Marina Parr of the Workforce Board presented on federal H.R. 1’s new Workforce Pell provisions and the updated Career Bridge website. She explained that Workforce Pell would allow federal aid for short-term training programs of 8 to 15 weeks, with high completion, employment, and earnings thresholds and a requirement that credentials be stackable and portable. She said Washington is well positioned to implement the program because of its existing eligible training provider evaluation system and Career Bridge, which now has a redesigned public portal, digital portfolios, multilingual access, and performance data on programs. Members asked about rulemaking, possible gaps in state services, and how the wage and completion standards would be applied. The Washington Student Achievement Council then briefed the committee on the new Washington Completes FAFSA campaign created by executive order. Staff described an advisory board with statewide representation, a pilot that used microgrants and other supports at 25 priority schools, and a new goal of 46,000 FAFSA or WASFA completions this year. They reported that completion rates were tracking slightly ahead of last year, with 24% of high school seniors having completed a FAFSA by the end of November, and they showcased a public dashboard with subgroup data and a WIAA-based leaderboard. Members asked about outreach to rural and homeschool students, legislative communications, Pierce County representation, and barriers to FAFSA completion, and staff said they would provide toolkits and continue expanding outreach. The committee then began hearing from student presenters about affordability, access, equity, and student experience.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a solution we believe to be part of the solution anyway through the policy process with Assembly
• One of the things we did in this ICAMP process—the Integrated Capital Asset Management Process—is that
• So I would just caution that it is a timely process to work with all of our interest holders.
• So would just caution that it is a timely process to work with all of our interest holders.
• So we will begin that process, and we are in the process of finalizing a data sharing agreement with

Summary: The committee’s first major discussion focused on higher education facilities across UC, CSU, and the community colleges, with Chair Alvarez framing the issue as a final budget hearing before the May Revise. The LAO presented findings that campuses have grown substantially in buildings and square footage, while classroom and lab utilization remains below legislative standards and deferred maintenance backlogs continue to rise. The LAO also emphasized that the state and segments lack comprehensive data on capital renewal spending and recommended better reporting, clearer funding targets, and long-term planning for renewal and maintenance. UC, CSU, and community college representatives each described large five-year capital plans, aging facilities, seismic and deferred maintenance needs, and the role of student housing, while noting that construction costs are rising faster than inflation. Members questioned the segments about debt service, utilization rates, and how projects are prioritized. UC said its debt service tied to state support is about $665 million annually and described a $30 billion five-year capital financial plan, including housing, medical centers, and building renewal. CSU said it has about $31 billion in five-year needs and more than $8 billion in deferred maintenance, with funding coming from a mix of state-related and one-time sources since the state shifted capital responsibility to CSU. Community colleges said their unmet facilities needs total about $33.5 billion and explained their use of a scoring matrix and FUSION system to rank projects. The chair and members pressed all three systems to better distinguish between projects that are truly shovel-ready and those that are long-term needs, and discussed whether facilities condition data, total cost of ownership, and more standardized metrics should guide future bond proposals. The committee then turned to Proposition 2 and the Governor’s proposed community college capital outlay projects. The Department of Finance said Prop. 2 provides $1.5 billion for community colleges and that the Governor’s budget proposes 29 projects, with two continuing Prop. 51 projects also included. The LAO supported the overall use of the funds but raised concerns about the current 65/35 split between modernization and growth, the unusually large share of gymnasium projects, and some scoring metrics that favor larger campuses and certain regions. Community college officials said the scoring system was developed through participatory governance and would take one to two years to revise, but they supported the funding and agreed to follow up on questions about project categories and the rationale for the weighting. Members also suggested giving more weight to modernization, regional access, and intersegmental or collaborative projects. A final item addressed the CalKids program. The Department of Finance proposed $56,000 ongoing General Fund for three positions, while the LAO recommended approving two positions but rejecting a manager position until the current $7.5 million marketing campaign is evaluated. ScholarShare’s executive director said CalKids has enrolled more than 5 million children, with nearly 600,000 claims and over $45 million distributed, and argued that additional staff and outreach are needed to reach a goal of 1 million claimed scholarships by the end of 2025 and to implement AB 2808. Members asked about marketing effectiveness, data sharing, and eligibility rules, and the program said it is expanding partnerships with Cradle to Career and CSAC. No final vote was taken in the hearing, and the chair indicated the facilities item would be held open.

Transcript Highlights:

• There was an ice part process they were providing to the automotive sector that was going away.
• We actually worked with them to actually build to process and use some of our tools to help them make
• Understand that process is really the critical factor here.
• That's really a process, in my humble opinion, that works great.
• <00:23:59.880> and matter of where they in the process and matter of where they in the process

Keywords: 00:01 Call to Order and Roll Call 00:34 Economic Development Cabinet 27:51 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The committee met without a quorum, so the minutes from the last two meetings were not approved. Secretary Noel of the Cabinet for Economic Development then gave a broad overview of the cabinet’s work and an update on the Kentucky Product Development Initiative (KPD), with Deputy Secretary Katie Smith and General Counsel Matt also present. He said the cabinet’s strategy is to focus on high-wage job creation, especially in automotive transformation, business and financial professional services, tourism, logistics, agri-tech, aerospace, and other high-tech sectors, while also supporting small and medium-sized businesses and existing employers. Noel highlighted several program results and examples, including average incentivized wages approaching $27 per hour, 877 jobs and $346 million in investment through hub operations, $90 million through Commonwealth Ventures, help for hundreds of companies through the Kentucky Intellectual Property Alliance, work with 220 companies through the Kentucky Science and Technology Council, nearly 3,000 students in Advanced Kentucky, and more than 1,100 participants in Kentucky Valor. He also cited 35,000 workers trained through Bluegrass State Skills, 177 businesses helped by the small business tax credit, and 77 entertainment incentive transactions totaling about $200 million and 7,400 jobs. On the grant side, he said the cabinet had approved 155 projects under a federal grant program, committing $99 million, with outreach aimed at smaller communities and all 120 counties. The main focus of the second half was KPD. Noel described it as a program that requires more than basic due diligence, emphasizing community readiness, local vision, title and mineral-rights review, sewer validation, and consultant review. He said 109 projects had been awarded in the earlier rounds, and in 2024 there were 45 requests for information seeking $81 million against $35 million in available funding, showing strong demand. He also said the cabinet has worked with local economic developers through five regions aligned with area development districts, and that the secretary, deputy secretary, or commissioner of business development must attend the regional meetings, with 100% attendance reported for the key three last year. In response to questions, he said Jefferson County’s lack of KPD projects so far likely reflects where local land and development strategies are in the process rather than a lack of interest, and he said the cabinet has not heard that Kentucky’s occupational safety and health rules are clearly helping or hurting competitiveness, though he offered to look into it further.

Transcript Highlights:

• That process would be repeated every 60 days until trial.
• It's spotty in many areas they do, many areas they don't have the process to.
• During this process as well We've seen in multiple jurisdictions.
• I get due process when I'm held. This is. This is not ancient medieval England.
• Reminder, SGR 1 violates an individual's right to due process.

Bills: SB9, SB1047, SB1048, SJR17, SJR49, SB40, SJR1, SJR5, SB 9, SB 40, SJR 1

Keywords: bail reform, defendants, pretrial detention, public safety, criminal justice, charitable bail organizations, criminal procedure, public safety report, victim notification, family violence, bail bonds, public funds, political subdivision, injunction, taxpayer rights, violent crimes, sexual offenses, community safety, constitutional amendment, trafficking

Transcript Highlights:

• You want to revamp the process.
• I recently turned on the hiring process again and said, start filling to the new process.
• We’re trying to streamline those processes.
• We’re trying to streamline those processes.
• And that means they're in the hiring process.

Summary: The subcommittee met to review agency vacancy reports and agency-requested budget reductions, with Chair Lopez framing the discussion around stewardship of taxpayer dollars, agency efficiency, and whether long-vacant positions should be cut or repurposed. Members were given vacancy summaries and asked to focus on how agencies are functioning with current staffing, which positions are mission critical, and whether some vacancies reflect market pay issues, re-engineering of work, or true excess capacity. The chair also noted that agency heads had been asked to provide follow-up information on current openings, average vacancy duration, mission-critical roles, and reasons for vacancies. The Department of Revenue was the first major agency reviewed because it had the largest number of vacancies. Its leadership said vacancies had improved from pandemic-era highs due to market pay adjustments, but that some areas—especially general tax and audit—still had long-term openings. The department explained that some positions are intentionally frozen while work is restructured, that it hires above minimum salary in some cases to stay competitive, and that it is using automation and process changes to reduce backlogs. Members raised concerns about vacancies outside Leon County, out-of-state auditor positions, salary compression, and whether the department should provide a list of frozen positions and the salaries actually needed to recruit. The Department of Financial Services said its long vacancies were concentrated in risk management, law enforcement, and the general counsel’s office, where salaries and competition from private employers and other agencies make hiring difficult. DFS said it was using outside vendors in some areas, had reduced vacancies in its general counsel office significantly, and was willing to identify positions that could be cut, including some from treasury and OAT. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation reported progress in lowering vacancies through statewide recruiting, centralized legal hiring, automation in service operations, and leadership changes in alcoholic beverages and tobacco; it said one recommended cut could be achieved by combining two half-time positions. The Florida Lottery reported a low vacancy rate, said all positions were critical, and explained its longer onboarding time due to extensive background checks; members discussed sales reps, incentives, and the agency’s field-office structure. The Office of Financial Regulation said many of its vacancies were already in the hiring pipeline, with recent vacancies tied to promotions, a death, and internal moves, and noted that it often serves as a training ground for federal agencies. The Office of Insurance Regulation, which had a high vacancy rate concentrated in Leon County, said it had been reducing vacancies from a much higher level and was still working through hiring and administrative constraints.

Transcript Highlights:

• If it has gone through the competitive process, we don't need to designate an appropriation. ...process
• That's what the process is.
• It’s going through the legislative process, and this expedited negotiation process won’t work.
• It’s going through the legislative process, and this expedited negotiation process won’t work.
• It's going through the legislative process, and this expedited negotiation process won't work.

Summary: The hearing focused on the governor’s May Revision proposals for transportation, natural resources, climate, and related programs, with the Department of Finance and the LAO presenting competing views on the state’s fiscal condition. Finance said the budget remains balanced over two years, with major climate-bond, water, parks, transportation, DMV, and agriculture proposals, while the LAO argued the state still has a structural deficit and should reject or defer many new discretionary spending items, preserve reserves, and be cautious about ongoing commitments. The LAO specifically questioned the timing and scale of new spending for programs such as Clean California, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, and the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, and urged more clarity on future obligations and revenue scenarios, including for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance described it as an enforceable, science-based alternative to a more traditional regulatory approach, with the state’s $25 million request intended to support early implementation, monitoring, habitat restoration, and environmental flows. The LAO countered that the Water Board has not yet adopted the updated Bay-Delta plan, that the proposal may be premature, and that the Legislature should wait for more information on the state’s total funding commitment and the program’s long-term costs. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce conflict and protect water reliability, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquiring the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat project. State officials said the acquisition is a time-sensitive, once-in-a-generation opportunity, with an appraised value of $175 million and additional philanthropic and local funding expected to close the gap. Members questioned whether the project had gone through the usual competitive process, whether the site is the best use of scarce park bond dollars, and how public access, habitat, and disadvantaged-community priorities would be protected. The discussion ended without a vote, and the committee moved on to transportation items including Clean California litter abatement, the Games Route Network, homeless encampment coordinators, and DMV modernization and field office proposals, with LAO recommending rejection or delay on several of those requests as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think we're going to burial process.
• <00:03:31.680> of this is a forward-looking process of this is a forward-looking process of
• One of which was this process.
• and DHS's systems to be able to process and DHS's systems to be able to process applications<00:
• Healthcare Sterile Processing Healthcare Sterile Processing Association.<01:30:34.080> We're<

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• the process.
• <00:18:45.360> are offering what your processes are offering what your processes are um<00
• So, as you can see, process begins.
• > just investigation process that's just investigation process that's just entirely<00:39:54.480
• > place<00:41:01.280> with process that takes place with process that takes place with

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee discussed House Bill 185, which would amend RSA 3109 to add timelines for OPLC’s complaint review and investigation process. Members reviewed the existing five-year limitation period for misconduct complaints and noted that the bill would add a 30-day deadline for the office to make a recommendation to the board and a 90-day deadline to complete investigations. Some members raised concerns that the new deadlines could conflict with the existing statute of limitations, create pressure to dismiss cases too quickly, and potentially undermine the separation between OPLC’s investigative role and the boards’ adjudicatory role established by House Bill 655. Nicholas Fry, OPLC general counsel, testified that the agency’s fiscal note originally assumed it would need roughly double its staff to meet the proposed deadlines, though a later amendment reduced that estimate somewhat. He said OPLC would still need additional personnel, including investigatory paralegals and a physician investigator for the Board of Medicine, to meet the timeframes. He also explained OPLC’s current complaint and hearing procedures, including new consumer-friendly correspondence, website guidance, and efforts by the enforcement division to improve transparency and communication with complainants and licensees. Bob Quinn of the New Hampshire Association of Realtors testified in support of the bill’s basic goal of speeding up intake and investigation, saying the 30-day intake/review period was reasonable and that the bill would not change OPLC’s role in that first step. He argued, however, that the investigation step is where delays occur, especially for lower-priority complaints, and that some cases have remained unresolved for years. Committee members also questioned how the added staffing costs would be paid, with discussion of whether they would come from license fees or the general fund. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• ,<02:06:07.760> they're they go through the process, they're they go through the process,
• backlog in processing visa applications. backlog in processing visa applications.
• and due process.
• and due process.
• and due process.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Housing Committee opened with a public hearing on HB 196, which would repeal the Housing Champion program. Representative Matt Drew, the prime sponsor, argued the program is an unnecessary and poorly targeted subsidy, saying it rewards municipalities after projects are completed and may not be limited to new housing production. He questioned the transparency of the program, cited difficulty finding required annual reports, and noted a fiscal note suggesting the state could recover up to $3 million if obligations are terminated. Committee members and witnesses debated whether the program’s criteria amount to political favoritism or a standard grant process; supporters said the rubric is specific and that municipalities are evaluated against objective requirements. Representative Priest, Nick Taylor of Housing Action New Hampshire, and Karen Benfield of Stay Work Play New Hampshire all opposed repeal, saying the program encourages local zoning and regulatory changes, helps smaller communities participate, and supports housing supply and young people’s ability to stay in the state. The hearing on HB 196 was then closed. The committee then opened a hearing on HB 1405, a bill establishing an affordable housing guarantee program within the Housing Finance Authority. Prime sponsor Representative Chris Muns said the bill would reduce lender risk by guaranteeing up to 80% of principal on qualifying loans for affordable housing, with a cap of $30 million per lender per year and $300 million outstanding at any time. He described the measure as a low-cost public-private partnership backed by the full faith and credit of the state, and said it was identical to a prior Senate bill that had received unanimous bipartisan committee support before dying later in the process. He framed the bill as one part of a broader housing package aimed at financing, infrastructure, workforce, zoning reform, and other housing-related issues. No votes were taken during the portion of the meeting provided. The only formal actions were opening and closing the public hearing on HB 196 and opening the public hearing on HB 1405, with testimony continuing on HB 1405 at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• discussion through this whole process. discussion through this whole process.
• I got an through the whole process.
• :57:58.960> simpler<00:57:59.359> because processes are also much simpler because processes
• So, it create through this process.
• Why would we skip an established process? I mean, maybe we could modify that process.

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The House convened, established a quorum, and approved the journal from February 4, 2026. Members then took up resolutions out of order, including Senate Joint Resolution 9 recognizing Missing Persons Day. Supporters described the scale of missing-person cases in Colorado and nationally, emphasized the role of families, law enforcement, and the public, and noted the importance of prompt investigations and technology. The resolution was adopted on a 58-0 vote, with seven excused. The chamber then moved to special orders and considered House Bill 1041, concerning electronic vehicle records and electronic certificates of title. The committee report was adopted after an amendment clarifying that any party to a vehicle transaction may request a paper or electronic title. Supporters said the bill would reduce delays, costs, and administrative burdens while preserving ownership and lienholder protections and keeping paper titles available as the default. The bill passed the House unanimously. Finally, the House began consideration of House Bill 1038 on county commissioner redistricting. The sponsor outlined seven committee amendments addressing county commissioner authority, outdated hearing references, competitiveness language, legislative declaration wording, elector standing to challenge maps, a correction to the competitiveness formula, and a bill-number fix. Debate then focused on amendment L10, which would remove the word “integrity” from the short title; supporters said the term could imply wrongdoing, while opponents wanted to keep it. L10 failed on a voice vote. Members then moved to amendment L8, which would carve out smaller counties from the bill’s redistricting requirements; discussion began, but the transcript cuts off before a final vote on that amendment or the bill itself.

Transcript Highlights:

• process. So that that is my first ask. process. So that that is my first ask.
• <00:52:20.880> So mistake in the bullying process. So mistake in the bullying process.
• Um process.
• my process, what I would do. my process, what I would do.
• Is that the process? Is that the process?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Education Policy and Administration Committee met to hear a non-germane amendment to House Bill 131, which concerns bullying and cyberbullying prevention. Representative Glenn Cordelli, the prime sponsor, said the amendment was intended to revise and improve language from last year’s SB 210 and to incorporate measures from a cyberbullying bill previously passed by the House. He described changes to school communication requirements, mandatory reporting of bullying and retaliation, stronger investigation and collaboration requirements for cross-district cases, added safety and remediation language, a required conference with the alleged perpetrator and parents if available, updated reporting deadlines, and disciplinary consequences for harassment, intimidation, retaliation, and false reports. He also noted a later amendment would be needed to insert the words “the perpetrator” in one section, and he explained that some changes were meant to align with prior legislation and legislative drafting suggestions. Committee members raised several concerns. Representative Murray questioned the treatment of private and parochial schools, the change from gross negligence to negligence, and the removal of a definition of bullying based on imbalance of power and perceived characteristics. Representative Damon also objected to deleting that definition, arguing it would narrow the scope of bullying too much. Representative Han spoke in opposition, saying the amendment was too broad, unnecessary in parts, and not ready for final action; he criticized the removal of the imbalance-of-power language, the conference requirement when parents may not participate, and the reporting obligations for bus drivers and others. Cordelli responded that some issues were already addressed in prior law or SB 210 and that private schools have their own policies. Michelle Wongran of New Hampshire Legal Assistance testified in opposition, saying the bill was being heard without enough notice and that it does far more than the committee analysis suggests. She said the amendment adds undefined retaliation language, imposes reporting duties on school vendors and contractors, may conflict with FERPA and other federal privacy rules, and includes provisions that could have serious implications for schools and students. She said she supports parental involvement and some conference provisions in concept, but urged the committee to reject the amendment or at least send it through the normal legislative process for fuller review. No vote was taken during the hearing portion described in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the idea of us matching or something through that process is not, uh, readily possible.
• So we're serious about our academics, and the point is, is that in, uh, 2019 we started a process.
• Yes, that will be part of the process. Thank you. Any other questions about Purple Star Schools?
• Um, through these programs we grow and expose more New Mexicans to this process.
• of our resources in that process itself.

Transcript Highlights:

• They've been working very hard on streamlining and the process of the capital outlay, tribal capital
• I think it has been mentioned by, uh, Representative Johnson, but there has to be a process that has
• to be put in place, so that, uh, the process can be shortened to, uh, maybe 8 weeks and it's ready to
• Um, but I think with our new members here, that process would probably be something I'd like to clarify
• To see that process and not only that, but uh I'm aware too that there have been changes in the time

Transcript Highlights:

• They claim that this is a red flag bill, which is and they claim that it denies due process.
• They claim that this is a red flag bill, which is and they claim that it denies due process.
• They claim that this is a red flag bill, which is and they claim that it denies due process.
• They claim that this is a red flag bill, which is and they claim that it denies due process.
• Why do we have people who were involved in this process?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:18:05.760> that<00:18:06.080> the governance processes that the governance processes
• really think about um the grant process really think about um the grant process and<00:19:00.000
• have RFPs of the competitive process. have RFPs of the competitive process.
• lack of public meeting and process lack of public meeting and process eroded<01:38:13.199> public
• 01:49:52.560> has eroded during this process has eroded during this process has significantly<

Keywords: 1187, senate, all