Transcript Highlights:

• But currently so it's in three sections. The first two sections.
• So in this bill, in one of those sections that says repeal this section on page 19, there's a section
• It is section 1.011A I'm sorry, it's section 39.023A(16) in current law of the Texas Education Code which
• sections of current law.
• That's why I keep referencing you back to that section of the code.

Bills: HB8, HB12, SB 3, HJR1, SB 11, SB 16, SB 14

Keywords: HB 8, Texas public school accountability, school accountability, public school transparency, STAAR, state assessments, instructionally supportive assessment program, Student Success Tool, Texas Education Agency, TEA, accountability ratings, A-F ratings, through-year assessment, benchmark testing, norm-referenced assessment, college career military readiness, CCMR, local accountability plan, school district performance, campus turnaround

Transcript Highlights:

• comes from the House with the endorsement that the House has amended the bill by inserting after Section
• 60 a Section 61, and by inserting after Section 63A additional language, and inserting after Section
• 71 a Section 71A. ...inserting after Section 63 a Section 63A and inserting after Section 71 a Section

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate considered and advanced several local and appropriations measures. It first took up Senate No. 2552, authorizing the town of Berkeley to recall elected officials; an amendment substituting Senate No. 3018 was adopted, and the bill was passed to be engrossed. The Senate also passed to be engrossed a Springfield local tax measure, House No. 3213, which had been retitled to authorize the city to appropriate funds to help certain residents meet local tax obligations. The Senate then concurred in House amendments to Senate No. 2859, the Sandwich charter bill, after suspending the rules. It also adopted a rules committee order extending the Public Health Committee’s reporting deadline to April 17, 2026, for bills related to establishing a celiac disease screening pilot program. Finally, the Senate advanced House No. 5348, a fiscal year 2026 supplemental appropriations bill, ordering it to a third reading, passing it to be engrossed, adopting the required emergency preamble by standing vote, and then passing it to be enacted. The bill was ordered sent to the Governor. The Senate then set its next meeting for Wednesday at 11 a.m. and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• In other words, what does it have to do with dividing the city of Tampa into three sections?
• In other words, what does it have to do with dividing the city of Tampa into three sections?
• becomes, what about the rest of Article 3, Section 20?
• It did not overturn Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
• But the Supreme Court did not overturn Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituting identical House Bill 1D, to establish Florida’s congressional districts. The opening prayer and Pledge of Allegiance were followed by procedural remarks, then extensive floor discussion focused almost entirely on the redistricting proposal, its timing, and its legal basis. Senator Gaetz, explaining the bill, said the Governor had transmitted the map two days earlier, argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is not prohibited by law, and said the Governor’s stated reasons were to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts. He also said the legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal. Much of the debate centered on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Louisiana decision and whether it affected Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators Smith, Rouson, Sharief, Polsky, Arrington, Bracey Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and others questioned the short notice, lack of public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony, and whether the map diluted minority voting strength or fragmented communities of interest. Gaetz repeatedly said he was not offering legal opinions, that the Governor’s counsel believed the Fair Districts race-based provisions were inconsistent with federal law, and that any legal challenge would be for the courts. He also said the Governor’s mapmaker reported using census and demographic data, along with political data as one of many inputs, and claimed the map’s compactness was comparable to the current map. A motion by Senator Smith to temporarily postpone consideration of the bill failed on a 12-23 vote. After the Senate returned from a 30-minute break to review the new Supreme Court decision, debate continued. The chamber then substituted HB 1D for SB 8D, read the House bill, and advanced it to third reading. The transcript ends during debate on final passage, with Senators Rouson and Bernard speaking in opposition and arguing the map was procedurally rushed, legally vulnerable, and politically motivated.

Transcript Highlights:

• The holding was based on Article 4, Section 22 of the Texas Constitution.
• but are moved to the adult section.
• from the adult section.
• They are not putting pornography in the children's library section.
• children, a section specifically for early readers, a section specifically for teenagers, and so on.

Bills: HB186, HB201, HB229, HB796, HB1506, HB2702, HB2885, HB3225, HB3909, HB4285, HB5138

Keywords: social media, children, account verification, data privacy, parental control, financial crime, card fraud, motor fuel theft, law enforcement, criminal activity, skimmers, prevention, training, biological sex, government information, definitions, sex-based distinctions, public health, federal directives, state authority

Transcript Highlights:

• it repealing something, is it amending a current section?
• <01:12:50.040> is proposing is it adding a new section is proposing is it adding a new section
• <01:18:28.000> set you will see the definition section set you will see the definition section
• employable they didn't pass the section employable they didn't pass the section five<01:38:32.040
• There might be a section that's repealing something.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Education Committee held its organizational meeting for the new term, with members introducing themselves and describing their backgrounds in teaching, school boards, special education, administration, law, and related fields. Chair Glenn Cordelli outlined the committee’s goals and procedures, emphasizing civility, professionalism, and respectful treatment of witnesses and members. He also noted that the committee has been split into two this year because of the large volume of bills, and said the committee had already sent three bills to the other education committee, with 36 bills currently assigned and more expected. The chair reviewed committee rules and logistics: hearings should start on time, members should minimize cell phone use and avoid searching during testimony, and questioning of witnesses is limited to one question at a time unless the chair allows a follow-up. Members were told to use the title “Representative,” to sign up on pink cards to testify, and to submit written testimony to the clerk. He also explained that hearings are for listening rather than debating, while executive sessions are where debate and motions occur. Possible motions include ought to pass, inexpedient to legislate, and retain in committee for further work, including subcommittees. Additional procedures covered scheduling, with the committee expected to meet Wednesday and Thursday the following week because of a holiday, and regular meetings generally planned for Monday and Wednesday. The chair also discussed the consent calendar, reports from majority and minority positions, and the expectation that members who testify on a bill should not then question other witnesses on that same bill. No legislation was voted on at this meeting; it was a procedural and orientation session for the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Code, 153.010, is the section that authorized...
• Section 153.010 is the section that authorizes the court to order any type of family counseling.
• And I don't understand why that section was cut.
• And I don't understand why that section was cut.
• Senator Johnson, my comment—I think you asked if we had any opinion of that section.

Bills: HB40, HB1916, HB1973, HB2524, HB2530, HB3180, HB3421, HB3783, HB4170, HB4213

Keywords: business court, civil procedure, litigation, jurisdiction, arbitration, divorce, property division, family law, court jurisdiction, marital assets, parent-child relationship, birth certificate, identity proof, Family Code, court process, attorney fees, court costs, legal expenses, dispute resolution, child support

Summary: The committee heard several House bills, most of them relating to family law and court procedure, and left each bill pending after testimony. House Bill 1916 would clarify that the court that issued a final divorce decree retains exclusive jurisdiction over later actions involving undivided property. House Bill 1973 would require a certified birth certificate, if reasonably available, to be filed with a SAPCR petition or allow alternative proof of parentage while keeping the information confidential. House Bill 2530 would add qualifications and procedural safeguards for appointing amicus attorneys in SAPCR cases, including notice and hearing requirements, minimum qualifications, conflict rules, and limits on what amicus attorneys may do. House Bill 2524 would make Family Code references to attorney’s fees consistent by using “reasonable and necessary” language. House Bill 3180 would correct a scrivener’s error in the civil discovery rules by changing “settlement” to “statement.” The committee also heard House Bill 4213, which would change the interest rate on overdue child support from the current 6 percent simple interest to a fixed 5 percent and require the Attorney General to report on the impact of the change. Testimony was sharply divided: supporters argued lower interest could improve collections and help low-income obligors catch up, citing research and the size of child-support arrearages; opponents said lowering the rate would reduce incentives to pay and harm custodial parents and children. The Attorney General’s office raised implementation concerns about a House version that would have created a variable rate, while the committee substitute was described as restoring a simple fixed rate. After testimony, the bill was left pending. The committee also discussed House Bill 40, updating business court provisions and supplemental jurisdiction; House Bill 3421, streamlining probate procedures for original wills and copies; and House Bill 417, clarifying venue for lawsuits involving private transfer fees on real property. Each drew limited testimony and was left pending. Finally, House Bill 3783 drew extensive testimony on court-ordered counseling and reunification therapy in family cases. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would protect children and abuse victims from coercive, unregulated reunification practices, while opponents argued it was too broad, could interfere with legitimate therapy and judicial discretion, and might affect military families and other high-conflict cases. The committee heard testimony from judges, therapists, parents, survivors, and advocates, but took no final action and left the bill pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, I move to amend House Bill 3000, page one, section 1, line 18, by deleting the year 2027 and inserting
• Chair, I move to amend House Bill 3001, page one, section one, line 18, by deleting the year 2027 and
• Chair, I move to amend House Bill 3003, page 1, section 1, line 18, by deleting the year 2027 303, page
• 1, section 1, line 18, by deleting the year 2027 and inserting in lieu thereof the year 2031, amendment
• Chair, I move to amend House Bill 3004, page 1, section 1, line 18, by deleting the year 2027 and inserting

Bills: HB3000, HB3001, HB3002, HB3003, HB3004, HB3005, HB3006, HB3007, HB3008, HB4319

Keywords: cosmetology, barbering, massage therapy, State Board of Cosmetology and Barbering, Service Oklahoma, license renewal, license reinstatement, licensing fees, sunset extension, board membership, human trafficking, victim services, beauty school, barber school, esthetics, manicurist, eyelash extension, blow-dry styling, makeup artist, occupational licensing

Transcript Highlights:

• gone, and Section 3, the repeal of the insurance mandate, is gone.
• Section 1 was an amendment that was...
• Section 1 was an amendment that was, or a modification that was specific to the insurance mandate.
• So with that being removed, those two sections were no longer necessary.
• So section 2 of the House version is now section 1 of the Senate version.

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:

• On line 15 also changing section 15 to section 16.
• On line 15 also changing section 15 to section 16.
• On line 15 also changing section 15 to section 16.
• changing section 15 to read section 16. changing section 15 to read section 16.
• And final section 15 to section 16.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, the entire law enforcement section, the original law enforcement section, was written by Senator
• the sections around removing the MDE. the sections around removing the MDE.
• up if I find that section. up if I find that section.
• Um it it is<00:54:55.280> section is section is section um<00:54:58.160> all<00:54:58.240
• officials for purposes of u section officials for purposes of u section 10.01.<01:10:33.520>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Delete the proposed criminal penalties in proposed Section 1507 of the Elections Code.
• Delete Section 5 of the bill, which proposed to add Section 15104.5 to the Elections Code.
• Clarify that Sections 1553 and 19230 of the Elections Code do not prohibit agreements between elections
• And the word 'uniformed' will be brought back into Sections 18544 and 18544.
• Will be brought back into Sections 18544 and 18545 of the Elections Code.

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on May 6, 2026, with a quorum present and heard one bill, SB 73. The author described the measure as a response to perceived threats to California elections, including restrictions on armed or non-uniformed personnel at polling places, protections for ballots and voting equipment, and limits on law enforcement access to election materials without a court order. The chair reviewed a set of agreed amendments, including removing a section conflicting with AB 1664, deleting proposed criminal penalties, clarifying the role of the Attorney General and Secretary of State, and refining language on signature challenges, law enforcement support, and certified voting technology. Supporters, including AAPI Force, CHIRLA, the League of Women Voters of California, and Common Cause, argued the bill would protect voters from intimidation and preserve election integrity. Opponents from CALA argued the bill was unnecessary, would hinder legitimate investigations, and reflected distrust of law enforcement and federal oversight. Committee discussion focused heavily on whether the bill was responding to real-world threats and on the ballot seizure in Riverside County. Members questioned how the measure would affect signature challenges, chain of custody, and investigations into possible fraud. The author and supporters said ballots should remain in election officials’ custody and that federal or local agents should not be able to interfere with election materials or intimidate voters. The chair and other members also discussed the urgency clause and the need to move the bill quickly despite the proximity of the June election. The committee voted to do pass and re-refer SB 73 to the Committee on Public Safety. The roll call initially showed the bill passing 5-1, then after the absent member arrived, the final vote was 6-2, and the bill was reported out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• line 105, by inserting the following language Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection a of this section
• wrong, but I'm noticing that from what I found, Section 140 was repealed in.
• A section that has been repealed.
• The provisions of this section shall be in addition to the provisions of Section 140 of Title 61 of the
• So this section is added to.

Bills: HB3002, HB3416, HB3417, HB3418, HB3419, HB3463, HB3919, HB3985, HB4303

Keywords: counties, county officers, education, training, sunset law, county purchasing, procurement practices, budget management, public accountability, emergency procurement, reverse auction, bidding process, competitive bidding, public procurement, city council regulations, public works, bidding procedures, construction contracts, transparency, public trust

Transcript Highlights:

• It just did it in a place other than the definition section.
• ,<00:13:44.560> taking<00:13:44.880> out<00:13:45.120> the definition section
• , taking out the definition section, taking out the private<00:13:45.839> right<00:13:46.079><
• <00:13:49.120> 230<00:13:49.600> of [clears throat] of using section 230 of [clears
• throat] of using section 230 of the<00:13:49.920> Communications<00:13:50.560> Decency

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And somehow there was an error in the bill that included, uh, there's two sections of code that deal
• signed and this bill will include the whole section and basically what we're doing is we're exempting
• of code that deal with sections of code that deal with commercial<00:10:20.480> seafood<00:10
• was included in the only one section was included in the bill<00:10:28.240> that<00:10:28.399
• <00:10:31.200> and will include the whole section and will include the whole section and basically

Bills: HB38, HB39, HB181, HB38, HB39, HB181

Keywords: district attorneys, prosecutorial function, law enforcement, criminal procedure, legal advice, paternity, putative father registry, adoption, legal rights, parental rights, HB181, Alabama Building Renovation Finance Authority, bond authorization, state bonds, capital improvements, public buildings, State Capitol, renovation finance, public office facilities, infrastructure financing

Transcript Highlights:

• Below are the changes to each section of the bill listed in sequential order.
• Section 2 makes no change.
• Section 3 removes the requirement that hearing officers also take this training, given that they are
• The substitute amends section 11.059E of the Education code.
• Also, the substitute adds the repeal of Section 11.059F and G of the Education code.

Bills: HB178

Keywords: efficiency audit, political subdivision, tax rate, fiscal management, government accountability

Transcript Highlights:

• So, was deleted in the previous section.
• section section from<00:26:40.960> a<00:26:41.120> different<00:26:41.360> agency
• and the suspension without pay section.
• It's in rule in the same section.
• over to the permit restriction section. over to the permit restriction section.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened with routine business, including the Pledge of Allegiance, seating alternates, and approval of the minutes and consent calendar. Both were approved without opposition. The committee then moved to the regular calendar, beginning with Department of Environmental Services drinking water rules (2532). Staff noted that the final proposal deleted requirements that had been in the initial proposal, making the published notice technically inaccurate because it said there were no substantive changes. The agency responded that the requirements still exist in other rules, that regulated entities and the Water Council were notified, and that the public had notice through related hearings. After discussion about whether a new noticed hearing was needed, the committee approved the rule. The next item was Department of Administrative Services personnel rule 2510 on seniority and employee performance evaluation. Staff raised informational comments and one unclear comment about language that appeared to require a checkbox even though no form exists, and about evaluation categories that could overlap. The agency said the checkbox language should be removed, but defended the overlapping categories as part of a long-standing template used by agencies for the past 10 years. Members discussed whether the language was too ambiguous or could lead to inconsistent application, but the committee ultimately approved the rule with a condition striking the checkbox language in the affected sections. The committee then considered personnel rule 25109 on investigations, discipline, non-disciplinary communications, and non-disciplinary removal. Staff recommended clarifying language distinguishing license suspension from termination for cause, and questioned whether the sexual-harassment discipline language was too broad because the same conduct could fit multiple discipline levels. The agency agreed to add the suggested clarification for the license-suspension provision, but argued the sexual-harassment language should remain because another rule already provides the factors for determining the appropriate discipline and the agency needs discretion for fact-specific cases. The discussion included concerns about how non-verbal conduct might be treated, but the committee moved toward conditional approval with the agreed clarification and approval of the rest of the rule as written.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 682, Allen, PFS prohibitions, do pass with author's amendments to, among other things, strike Section
• SB 640, Cabaldon, college emissions, do pass with committee amendments to remove Section 3, out with
• SB 567, Limón, gravity-based energy storage wells, do pass with author's amendments to strike Section
• two and three from the bill out with republicans Do pass with author's amendments to strike Sections
• SB 71, Wiener, CEQA exemption for transit projects, do pass with author's amendments to strike Section

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee held its August 29, 2025 suspense hearing on Senate bills, with the chair emphasizing the state’s ongoing budget constraints and the need to make difficult choices among 261 bills on the suspense file. After establishing a quorum, the committee began taking action bill by bill, with many measures receiving do pass or do pass with amendments recommendations, while others were held in committee or designated as two-year bills. The chair noted the agenda was organized alphabetically by author and that results would be posted later on the committee website. The hearing covered a wide range of topics, including insurance and claims data, wildfire relief and prevention, water planning, energy and utility regulation, housing and land use, health care, labor and employment, criminal justice, education, environmental policy, and election-related measures. Several bills were amended before passage, often to narrow scope, remove sections, adjust definitions, delay implementation, or clarify funding and enforcement provisions. Some notable actions included moving bills on AI regulation, transit-oriented housing, paid family leave, wildfire mapping, chemical hair relaxers, and pharmacy benefit managers, while other bills on subjects such as controlled substances, high-speed rail, and certain education or housing proposals were held. The committee also took formal roll-call votes on selected bills, with some passing on A roll calls and others on B roll calls; a number of measures were advanced with Republicans not voting. One highlighted vote was SB 79 by Senator Wiener, which passed after amendments and a recorded roll call. At the end of the hearing, the committee reported that 190 bills were moved to the Assembly Floor, either as do pass or do pass with amendments, concluding the suspense hearing for the session.

Transcript Highlights:

• Under current law, Section 995 exists as this procedural safeguard.
• To me, it seems like the code section becomes important.
• To me, it seems like the code section becomes important.
• To me, it seems like the code section becomes important.
• Restitution in California is governed by Penal Code section 1202.4.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It says page two line 17 before the insert notwithstanding section 16A.1283.
• It says page two line 17 before the insert notwithstanding section 16A.1283.
• It says page two line 17 before the insert notwithstanding section 16A.1283.
• It says page two line 17 before the insert notwithstanding section 16A.1283.
• section 16A 1283 is? Mr. Burrows. section 16A 1283 is? Mr. Burrows.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee took up House File 1335, a bill to authorize Minnesota digital/mobile driver’s licenses and related electronic credentialing. Chair Tapkey moved the bill as amended to Ways and Means, and the committee adopted the A2 author’s amendment changing the effective date. Tapkey described the bill as a modernization measure modeled on other states, intended to add convenience and security for ID checks at bars, restaurants, airports, hotels, and car rentals, while keeping physical IDs in place. Chair Kosnick objected that the bill’s subject matter should be heard in other committees, especially Commerce, Public Safety, and Judiciary, citing privacy and law-enforcement concerns, but the hearing continued. Several testifiers supported the broader move toward digital credentials and e-titling. Brian McDaniel of the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association said the hospitality industry supports tools that make it harder for minors to access alcohol, while noting privacy concerns and wanting a role in developing the system. Amanda Doerr of the Minnesota Automobile Dealers Association supported the A3 amendment as an incremental step toward electronic titles and electronic signatures, saying Minnesota is behind other states and that the transition should be gradual. Jim Hurst of the Minnesota Deputy Registrars Association said deputies support moving toward e-titling but raised concerns about liability for fraudulent electronic documents and strongly opposed the A4 revenue-sharing amendment, warning it could put deputy registrars out of business. Sam Krieger, representing private deputy registrars, said the A4 amendment could exclude private deputies and close about half the offices in the state. Chair Tapkey said the A3 and A4 amendments were intended to improve customer service, digital access, and future title transfers, but after hearing objections, both amendments were withdrawn. The committee then considered the A5 amendment offered by Rep. Anderson, which would bar electronic driver’s licenses for people not lawfully present in the United States. Anderson argued it would prevent issuing credentials to people in the country illegally, including suspected terrorists. Opponents, including Rep. Kegel and Rep. Lucero Nicolai, argued it would create unequal treatment and could wrongly affect refugees or asylum seekers. DVS Director Pong Xiong testified that current applications do not include NCIC checks and that standard credentials are validated through document review rather than broader database screening. The transcript ends amid continued debate over the A5 amendment and related privacy and eligibility questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's the ones that we have in front of us, section 11 and section 57.
• The remainder of that section, the next section relates to the state auditor, the role of the state auditor
• That's in this next section.
• The remainder of that section, the next section relates to the state auditor, the role of the state auditor
• That's in this next section.

Summary: The committee was called to order, the Pledge of Allegiance and prayer were offered, and the minutes from the previous meeting were approved. Members then received a memo summarizing major audit items and began hearing audit presentations from the State Auditor’s Office and private auditors on a range of state agencies and organizations. Several audits were reported as clean, including the Bank of North Dakota, the North Dakota Guaranteed Student Loan Program, the Office of the Governor, the Office of the State Treasurer, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Transportation’s flexible transportation fund, Lake Region State College, and the Department of Environmental Quality. The North Dakota Stockmen’s Association also received an unmodified opinion, though repeat findings were noted for limited segregation of duties and financial statement preparation due to its small staff. The Council on the Arts audit found two findings: payroll charged to federal awards without adequate timekeeping records, and unallowable expenditures from a restricted cultural endowment fund. The Department of Public Instruction audit identified unsupported scholarship applications in the paraprofessional-to-teacher program, though additional testing showed the funds were used for their intended purpose. The most extensive discussion centered on the North Dakota Racing Commission audit, which identified four findings: overspending the promotion fund’s 25% operating limit, grant conditions not being met, improper Breeders Fund awards, and improper procurement for advertising services. Racing Commission director Bruce Johnson acknowledged complacency and weak controls, said the agency would tighten procedures, and explained that the commission had since worked with procurement and would follow the rules more closely. Auditors also explained that the commission would now be audited every two years because of the findings. Another major discussion involved the University of North Dakota School of Law, where auditors found a lack of documentation supporting admissions decisions for post-baccalaureate programs. UND officials said they remain in good standing with the American Bar Association but agreed better documentation and tools are needed; the committee pressed for more transparency and follow-up on admissions criteria. The committee also received an update on Dakota College at Bottineau, where Minot State University reported that bank reconciliations had been brought current after a significant backlog and would now be maintained through shared services. Members requested a written follow-up report on the issues and corrective actions. Finally, the North Dakota Fair Association explained that its foundation has been dissolved and remaining funds were transferred to another nonprofit for continued support of the state fair, and the Department of Public Instruction provided an update on school meal debt, saying the reported amount was about $1.1 million from a partial district survey and that debt remains a local issue, though it could be revisited if school meal funding changes.