Transcript Highlights:

• I know I've shared my concerns, too.
• data. ...in process where they are signing off to share data via the Department of Education's data-sharing
• , and then I share it with the person who needs to work with it, and then they share it back.
• sharing with any other agency.
• So instead of requiring the school board to share the data, it would be authorizing them to share the

Summary: The committee first heard HB 690 by Rep. Amedee, which would prohibit education agencies and vendors from contracting with foreign adversaries, foreign terrorist organizations, or their agents, and would apply to education service providers, vendors of educational products, and some schools. Supporters argued the bill would protect school tax dollars and prevent foreign influence, especially from the Chinese Communist Party, citing similar actions in Florida and Texas. Some members raised questions about due process, how ineligibility would be determined, and whether payments would stop before appeals were resolved. A technical amendment changing “terrorists” to “terrorist” was adopted, and HB 690 was reported as amended without objection. The committee then took up HB 1078 by Rep. Freiberg, which would allow higher education institutions to offer standalone online courses, not just online programs tied to a degree, and to offer online programs even when there is no equivalent on-campus program. LSU officials said the bill would give flexibility for professional and workforce-related courses and certificates. Members asked about tuition-setting, prerequisites, and whether non-degree students could enroll. The bill was reported favorably without objection. HB 113 by Rep. Phelps, which sought retroactive application of the uniform 10-point grading scale to students who were ninth graders in 2023-2024, drew significant concern. Members questioned fairness, inconsistency if only some districts could recalculate grades, and the fiscal impact of retroactivity. Phelps said he had intended to capture that cohort and was willing to work with the Department of Education, but after debate the committee voted 2-9 against reporting the bill, so the motion failed. The committee also heard HB 632 by Rep. Spell on LA FIRST data sharing. The bill would streamline how student data is shared for the state’s longitudinal data system, and amendments were adopted to remove a five-year look-back and clarify data matching and de-identification. Members debated privacy, opt-out rights, and whether the bill should require or merely allow districts to participate; concerns were raised about sharing personally identifying information and the lack of clear opt-out protections. Rep. Carlson offered an amendment to change “shall” to “may,” but later withdrew it so the bill could be deferred for further discussion. Finally, HB 1132 by Rep. Carver, carried by Rep. Carlson, was introduced to expand lab school authorization within the University of Louisiana system; an amendment was offered to limit the change to new schools established after August 1, and discussion began on that amendment as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• I know I've shared my concerns, too.
• data. ...in process where they are signing off to share data via the Department's data-sharing agreement
• , and then I share it with the person who needs to work with it, and then they share it back.
• sharing with any other agency.
• So instead of requiring the school board to share the data, it would be authorizing them to share the

Bills: HB113, HB342, HB632, HB690, HB1003, HB1078, HB1132, HB1146

Keywords: grading scale, education reform, students, public schools, academic policy, special education, due process, local education agency, burden of proof, IEP, education law, data sharing, student information, privacy, education, LA FIRST, foreign adversaries, terrorism, contracting, school funding

Transcript Highlights:

• I’m going to go ahead and share my screen to bring up the slide deck.
• So is there anything that anyone would like to share at this time?
• I will share the link, but it is a beautiful celebration.
• I will share the link, but it is a beautiful celebration.
• Thank you, everyone, for sharing.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Persons with Disabilities held its quarterly meeting on September 10, with roll call, approval of the June minutes as amended, and welcoming remarks for newly appointed commissioner Rachel Caprilyan and reappointed commissioners. Chair Denise Garlick outlined plans for a statewide community hearing series, beginning with a November 4 hybrid hearing at Needham Town Hall focused on the Boston/Metro West region, and described the creation of a nonvoting advisory council to broaden the commission’s expertise across health care, transportation, housing, education, employment, business, and local disability commissions. Commissioners discussed the nomination process, the need for geographic diversity, and the goal of having the council in place by the December quarterly meeting. The main presentation addressed proposed federal Medicaid and SNAP changes in H.R. 1, with Jennifer Bertrand of the Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities Council warning that the law could cut federal Medicaid spending by $1 trillion over 10 years, impose work requirements, require redeterminations every six months, restrict provider taxes, and reduce SNAP benefits. She said these changes could increase uninsurance, create administrative barriers, and threaten home- and community-based services, with a Massachusetts analysis projecting 141,000 to 203,000 MassHealth members could lose coverage over six months. Commissioners and attendees responded that the changes could harm people with disabilities, caregivers, and provider organizations, increase institutionalization risk, and intensify competition for limited state resources; several emphasized the need for disability groups and broader health care stakeholders to coordinate advocacy. Subcommittee reports highlighted recent and upcoming work. The Disability Employment Subcommittee reported on a June “Strength and Support” event, an August presentation by Run the Gamut, and an upcoming MAPC/Employment First workshop in Worcester, while the Long-Term Services and Supports and Health Equity Subcommittee discussed a presentation from the Lurie Institute for Policy Research on community living dashboards and disparities in Medicaid and LTSS. Commissioners also shared announcements about upcoming events, including the Paul Spooner Generational Leisure Summit, the Disability Policy Consortium’s John Winsky Memorial Award ceremony, the Massachusetts Health Council’s annual celebration, and a September 17 hearing on insurance coverage for hearing aids. The meeting ended with congratulations to commissioner Carl Richardson for an accessibility award and a motion to adjourn, which passed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, I don't know if the administration will share that, but that's something to look at.
• Rebecca, thank you so much for sharing that.
• Rebecca, thank you so much for sharing that.
• So we have those to share out and consider. Thank you so much, and welcome again.
• And Senator Miranda started to share some of these as well. So as mentioned, Dr.

Summary: The Ellen Story Commission on Postpartum Depression met to reopen its work for the year, confirm attendance, and note several membership transitions, including the departure of Beth Buxton, Nekah Hall, and Dr. Lisa Scarfo. Senator Miranda stepped down as co-chair, and Senator Adam Gomez was welcomed as the new Senate co-chair. Both outgoing and incoming leaders spoke about the importance of the commission’s work, the need for continued advocacy on maternal mental health, and personal losses that have shaped their commitment to the issue. Members discussed priorities for the coming year, including implementation of the maternal health omnibus law, publicizing upcoming maternal health events, and improving information-sharing through a biweekly digest. Several commissioners raised concerns about the closure of birthing centers and inpatient obstetric units, workforce shortages in obstetrics and midwifery, and the need to preserve or expand training slots and federal matching opportunities. Others emphasized the need to strengthen community-based perinatal mental health supports, including Moms Do Care and First Steps Together, and to increase funding beyond the $220,000 appropriated for community organizations. The commission also heard updates from the Division of Insurance and the Department of Public Health about regulatory and reimbursement issues, including a new community of learning for payers, mental health exam reimbursement guidance, and concerns about sustainability of birth centers and midwifery reimbursement. Commissioners stressed the importance of better coordination among OB-GYN, pediatric, infant mental health, home visiting, and clinical providers, with some suggesting a stronger role for clinicians and perinatal mental health organizations such as PSI of Massachusetts. The meeting ended with a motion and vote to create a biweekly information digest, with urgent items to be shared by email, followed by adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• I echo a lot of what my colleagues from Greater Boston Legal Services just shared, and I am sharing testimony
• MAPC's housing team collects, interprets, and shares housing data.
• Home sharing is a smart and sustainable solution.
• The parties would negotiate and sign a home sharing agreement that defines payment terms, shared access
• sharing program fees, would support home shares in need of emergency relief housing.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing held a hybrid hearing on a broad slate of housing and homelessness bills. Chairs Rich Haggerty and Julian Cyr opened by noting the committee’s focus on EOHLC programs such as RAFT, MRVP, and HomeBASE, and several members and advocates emphasized the urgency of the state’s homelessness crisis, including rising family homelessness and the need for earlier intervention, more stable subsidies, and stronger long-term housing tools. A major theme was homelessness prevention and rehousing. Multiple witnesses supported bills to codify and strengthen RAFT and HomeBASE, arguing that assistance should be available earlier in a crisis rather than only after a notice to quit or imminent loss of housing. Testimony from legal services, homelessness coalitions, social workers, municipal housing staff, and tenant advocates said the programs help families avoid eviction and shelter, but need more flexibility, higher benefit caps, and permanent statutory protection. Several speakers also urged support for codifying the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP), describing it as a critical long-term subsidy for low-income households and older adults, and warning that codification would protect the program from future budget or policy changes. The committee also heard testimony on housing stability for older adults, affordable homes for people with disabilities, supportive housing, housing cooperatives, home sharing, local preference, and reentry housing for returning citizens. Advocates for older adults described a Somerville bridge subsidy pilot that helped stabilize seniors while they waited for permanent housing, and urged statewide expansion. Supporters of supportive housing called for an interagency board to streamline funding and development, while cooperative housing proponents backed creation of a Massachusetts Center for Housing Cooperatives and a dedicated funding reserve. A bill to secure housing for returning citizens drew support from reentry providers and Senator Adam Gomez, who said stable housing is essential to successful reintegration. No votes were taken during the hearing; witnesses generally asked the committee to report the bills favorably, and some members asked follow-up questions on data and program details.

Transcript Highlights:

• Do you mind sharing with us the challenge that your constituent was having?
• Thank you for sharing that with me. I didn't realize that.
• I would like to share with you that we actually spoke with... Mr.
• share that information that they captured on that inspection.
• Chair, I share the same concerns.

Bills: HB2016, HB2104, HB2105, HB2288, HB2289

Keywords: tax penalties, filing, tax returns, administration, Arizona Revised Statutes, agricultural property, classification, county assessor, property inspection, appeal process, property tax, agricultural classification, Department of Revenue, property valuation, inspection notice, inspection report, on-site inspection, full cash value, rural land, farm land

Transcript Highlights:

• Between 2021-22 and 2023-24, the share of students Between 2021-22 and 2023-24, the share of students
• I've shared it with committee staff, who hopefully shared it with all of you, but I'm happy to recirculate
• There's a lot of sharing of tools like release of information or consent-sharing tools, as an example
• There's a lot of sharing of tools like release of information or consent-sharing tools, as an example
• I'm here to support Soluna and share how it helped me.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• or local share.
• Cost sharing is the next item. So Okay. Cost sharing is the next item.
• </c> set these cost sharing requirements. set these cost sharing requirements.
• And then reinstating cost sharing. date. And then reinstating cost sharing.
• </c> put it out yet, but we can share. put it out yet, but we can share.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> know that um Chair Scott wanted to share know that um Chair Scott wanted to share publicly<00:38
• I share the concerns that Mr.
• </c><01:04:36.319><c> my</c> person in the world sharing my person in the world sharing my information
• And this is an issue shared unless absolutely necessary. shared unless absolutely necessary.
• ,</c><01:47:08.320><c> strict</c> clear limits on data sharing, strict clear limits on data sharing,

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee approved the October 15, 2025 minutes and then held a broader discussion on current challenges with data retention and government transparency. Judy Randall of the Office of the Legislative Auditor said historical data is essential for post-audits, which often look back three to five years, and that retention decisions must balance audit needs with the burden of separating public and nonpublic data. She described the records-retention panel process as informal and largely based on individual judgment, noting she had objected to a proposed 60-day email retention period and generally uses a three-year guideline, though she said that standard is not grounded in a formal rule. Members discussed whether auditing standards should set retention periods, with Randall saying auditing is a good starting point but other offices, including the attorney general, also have needs, and that some agency discretion is unavoidable because of the gray area between official records and non-records. Representative Elkins raised the related principle of data minimization, arguing that government should not keep data longer than needed and citing a University of Minnesota legacy data warehouse breach as an example of the risks of retaining unnecessary sensitive information. Randall agreed that data no longer needed is a liability and said her office purges workpapers after five years. Representative Scott pressed whether three years is enough for fraud investigations and financial records; Randall responded that a reasonableness standard is needed and that longer retention can produce diminishing returns, though she said she would follow up on whether financial records should be treated differently. Tanya Tacker of the Rum River Special Education Cooperative testified in support of updating Minnesota’s data-retention laws for schools. She said districts want to protect student information and maintain transparency, but the current general retention schedule dates to 1985 and 2000 and does not reflect digital records, modern systems, or the volume of special education data. She urged modernizing the schedule, clarifying what must be kept in paper versus digitized form, aligning state rules with IDEA and other federal requirements, and providing practical guidance and tools. Members praised the specificity of her recommendations. Dr. BB Newman testified that retention failures in St. Anthony Village have made it difficult to obtain routine municipal and police data, with records delayed, missing, or inconsistently produced and no clear explanation of what systems were searched or whether records were destroyed. Newman argued these gaps undermine statutory access rights and force residents into costly litigation, and recommended stronger retention auditing, documentation of destruction, mandatory disclosure of systems searched, and consequences for noncompliance. In response to questions, Senate counsel said there is generally no direct penalty, but affected parties may seek mandamus, Data Practices Act claims, or informal mediation/opinions from the Data Practices Office. The discussion closed with calls for clearer standards and possible legislative updates to improve compliance and transparency.

Transcript Highlights:

• Shared services sometimes ends up being a catch-all.
• They're doing shared services.
• They're doing shared services.
• So I just wanted to kind of share those with you.
• So a couple of studies I wanted to share with you.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Streets, and Shared Spaces, safer bicycle infrastructure, and safer shared-use path infrastructure.
• We are already doing through Complete Streets, Shared Streets, and Shared Spaces, safer bicycle infrastructure
• , and safer shared-use path infrastructure.
• Lower-speed devices can be used on bicycle lanes and shared-use paths.
• We do have some concerns we'd like to share, however.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Transportation held a hybrid hearing on the governor’s Ride Safe Act, S. 3077, and related micromobility bills. Chairs and administration officials described the bill as a statewide, speed-based framework for e-bikes, scooters, mopeds, and similar devices, intended to replace outdated device categories with clearer rules for age limits, helmets, equipment, operating locations, registration, insurance for higher-speed devices, and restrictions on tampering. They also emphasized improved crash-data collection, a working group for future updates, and battery safety standards such as UL certification to reduce fire risk. Committee members asked about enforcement, shared-use paths, commuter rail accommodations, battery storage, and how the bill would apply to other vehicles like quads; the administration said some issues would need further study or follow-up. Testimony from advocates, municipal officials, and commission members was mixed but generally supportive of clearer statewide rules. Transportation and safety advocates backed the speed-based tier system but urged additional measures, including a default speed limit on shared-use paths, automated enforcement, and more funding for Complete Streets and Shared Streets programs. Bike shop and police representatives said current laws are confusing for riders and law enforcement and that better definitions and data reporting are needed. Several speakers stressed that enforcement and education will be critical, and that local patchwork rules are difficult to apply consistently. Medical testimony strongly supported tighter protections for young riders. Pediatric emergency and trauma doctors described a sharp rise in serious injuries and deaths involving e-bikes and scooters, including severe pediatric cases, and urged amendments adding a minimum age for faster devices and a universal helmet requirement. They argued that the force and weight of these devices make crashes more dangerous than conventional bicycles and pointed to past Massachusetts safety laws as evidence that age and equipment restrictions can reduce injuries. Some public testimony opposed the bill as written, especially from moped commuters who argued that gas-powered mopeds are being treated differently from comparable electric devices and should be included in the framework. They called for clearer rules on bike-lane access, insurance, parking, and statewide standards for mopeds as vulnerable road users. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee heard testimony and questions only.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, I have stories to share, because I don't know if it's time to share stories.
• Well, I have stories to share, because I don't know if it's time to share stories.
• I want to share a story now, since everybody shared.
• their work and to share specific resources they are.
• And the Department of Justice to share their work and to share specific resources they offer to victims

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then finally in the eligibility and access space—next slide, please—cost sharing: Cost sharing for
• I want to share a story of one community member that we're working with.
• with ICE because of the attack HHS has already shared with ICE.
• He didn't want his information shared with ICE.
• We will be back to share more information once the initiative is finalized, but we just wanted to share

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on the impacts of H.R. 1 on California’s Medi-Cal program and on community health effects from recent immigration enforcement actions. Committee leaders said H.R. 1 would sharply reduce federal funding, increase administrative burdens, and worsen access to care, especially for Medi-Cal enrollees, immigrant families, rural communities, and reproductive health patients. The second half of the hearing examined how ICE raids and related federal actions are creating fear, reducing clinic and emergency department use, and disrupting children’s access to schools and early childhood education. Department of Health Care Services Director Michelle Bass outlined the main H.R. 1 provisions affecting Medi-Cal: work requirements, semiannual eligibility redeterminations, shorter retroactive coverage, new cost-sharing, limits on provider taxes and state-directed payments, reduced federal support for emergency and lawful immigrant coverage, and a one-year ban on Medicaid funding for prohibited abortion providers. She estimated millions could lose coverage, with tens of billions of dollars in federal funding at risk. Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California warned the defunding provision could force clinic closures, service reductions, and loss of access to family planning, STI testing, and cancer screenings. The California Hospital Association said the financing changes could cut hospital revenue by tens of billions over 10 years and threaten access, especially for rural and safety-net hospitals. The Western Center on Law and Poverty argued the law would increase churn, paperwork, and uninsured rates, disproportionately harming working adults and people experiencing homelessness. Committee members asked about implementation timelines, notification systems, administrative costs, the effect on immigrant eligibility, and whether California could delay or mitigate some provisions. Bass said the state was still assessing federal guidance, planning county and provider outreach, and exploring a possible delay for work requirements and a transition period for provider-tax changes. Members also discussed how state budget actions may need to be revisited in light of H.R. 1, and how California might preserve access through state-only funding or other policy changes. In the second panel, CHIRLA, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, and the Children’s Partnership described the health consequences of immigration enforcement. Speakers said raids and data-sharing fears are causing anxiety, trauma, and avoidance of care, with Los Angeles County reporting declines in emergency, urgent care, and clinic visits after enforcement actions. The Children’s Partnership said school and early childhood absences are rising in some communities and that enforcement is undermining children’s emotional well-being and access to education. Members asked for more data and discussed possible state protections, telehealth, mobile care, and legal and policy responses to reduce fear and preserve access to health and education services.

Transcript Highlights:

• Basically what the bill is providing is that ride-share drivers are independent contractors.
• do not carry their insurance through their ride-share partner?
• Basically what the bill is providing is that ride share drivers, their independent contractors.
• So what we're trying to do in the bill is affirm the fact that you ride share activities.
• do not carry their insurance through their ride share partner?

Keywords: 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Shared services sometimes ends up being a catch-all.
• When you do shared services and you have institution A is When you do shared services and you have institution
• I just wanted to share those with you.
• So a couple of studies I wanted to share with you.
• So a couple of studies I wanted to share with you.

Summary: The committee met on the Minot State campus for a presentation from President Shirley and several university leaders on enrollment, academics, workforce initiatives, and partnerships. Shirley reviewed the university’s financial audits, noting mostly clean results with only minor technical findings in recent years, and highlighted Minot State’s major programs, specialized accreditations, and ties to Minot Air Force Base and NCAA Division II athletics. Members asked about education workforce shortages, athletic tuition waivers, dual credit incentives, and the university’s in-state tuition policy for all students. Shirley also discussed the university’s recruitment efforts, including the Hometown Pride and Academic Excellence scholarships, campus visit growth, and the Emerging Scholars dual-credit reimbursement program. A major focus was workforce development and new academic offerings supported by legislative Workforce Education Innovation Funds. Shirley described the new Innovation Engineering program, which was developed with industry input to train broadly skilled engineers for western North Dakota, and said it had already drawn more applicants than expected. Dr. Crystal St. Peter presented a new master’s program in counseling that integrates mental health and addiction counseling to address statewide provider shortages, with a hybrid format to reach rural students. Members asked about licensure requirements, internship hours, and job placement for graduates. Shirley also outlined a new nursing simulation center and health sciences space in downtown Minot, made possible by state support and the purchase of the former Trinity Health Center West building. The committee also heard about Minot State’s efforts to build pipelines into education and special education, including the Aspire program for rural high school students and an online paraprofessional-to-special-education degree pathway. Shirley said these programs, along with new articulation agreements and a large Bush Foundation grant, are intended to address teacher shortages and keep students in North Dakota. No formal committee votes or actions were taken during the presentation; the session consisted of informational updates and member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Community shares upon unit resale.
• sharing them.
• Thank you for sharing. Matt, I'll go to you next. Thank you, Juliana.
• Thank you for sharing that. I do see what you're saying.
• Thank you for sharing that. I do see what you're saying.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission meeting focused on continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), beginning with a presentation from Two Life Communities on its Opus Newton model, which is opening in the fall. Two Life described Opus as a middle-income, modern CCRC built around affordability, care coordination in residents’ apartments rather than separate care buildings, and resident-driven community life. Commissioners asked about financing, home care arrangements, affordability, Medicaid/MassHealth access, and the role of resident councils versus board representation. Two Life said it wants to remain within the CCRC framework, but expressed concern about proposals that would require multiple discrete care levels, impose deadlines on entrance-fee refunds, or require resident board seats. The commission then discussed possible recommendations. There was broad support for Senate Bill 478, which would require clearer disclosure of entrance-fee refund terms in a separate document for prospective residents. On refund timing, members were divided: some favored a one-year deadline or a deadline with waivers, while others opposed a fixed deadline because of financing risks and the potential impact on new development and current residents. Several members suggested keeping the status quo but adding better data collection and reporting on refund timing. On the CCRC definition and marketing, members debated whether the current statutory definition is too vague and whether the commission should recommend clearer standards or a certification-like process, while also noting resource limits for state oversight. Members also discussed the Age CCRC Consumer Guide, with general agreement that it should be updated and made more useful to consumers, possibly with clearer questions to ask and more information about facilities, though some cautioned against adding subjective financial-risk statements that would be hard to administer. On resident representation, several commissioners strongly supported requiring resident voting members on boards, while providers argued that strong resident associations and regular meetings with boards may be preferable and that communities should retain flexibility. The meeting ended with a request for written comments by July 11, draft recommendations to be circulated July 18, and a possible final meeting on July 21, with the commission aiming to finish by August 1.

Transcript Highlights:

• Would you like to share your testimony now? Sure.
• Many of the residents are artists, and they all work and share together.
• So, Susan, would you like to share? And then maybe Adam, you can share as well? Sure.
• Susan, would you like to share? And then maybe Adam, you can share as well?
• Thank you for sharing. Any questions from our commissioners? Great.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Continuing Care Retirement Communities held a public hearing focused on studying CCRCs in Massachusetts, including their financial viability, consumer protections, oversight, entrance fee and refund policies, advertising, and procedures for closure or ownership changes. Chair Rep. Tom Stanley and co-chair Sen. Pat Jehlen opened by explaining the commission’s mandate under Chapter 197 of the Acts of 2024 and asked speakers to keep testimony brief. Several commissioners and staff also emphasized the importance of hearing directly from residents, providers, and advocates. Resident testimony largely centered on two themes: the need for stronger resident representation and the need for clearer, faster refund protections. Multiple residents urged the legislature to require resident seats on governing boards, including full voting rights on national or nonprofit boards, and to make board minutes and meetings more transparent. Several speakers described long delays in receiving entrance-fee refunds after leaving a community, with one family reporting an 18-month wait and financial hardship; they called for a one-year refund limit, vacancy-order systems, escrow or reserve protections, and state oversight or guarantee funds. One resident also argued that CCRCs should be more clearly defined in state law and possibly licensed or certified so only approved communities can market themselves as CCRCs. Providers and operators generally described CCRCs as valuable models for aging in place and emphasized transparency, resident engagement, and the benefits of nonprofit ownership. Speakers from nonprofit communities said residents often serve on boards or committees, participate in budgeting and planning, and benefit from integrated care, amenities, and financial stability. A for-profit operator also said residents receive disclosure and input, while noting that CCRCs vary widely and that consumer education is important. Commissioners echoed several recurring issues at the end of the hearing, especially the need to define what a CCRC is and to address refund timelines and information sharing. No votes were taken; the hearing concluded with notice that the next virtual meeting would be on June 23 at 10:00 a.m., and written testimony was invited by email.

Transcript Highlights:

• So if I get more information on that, I will definitely share that along with the group.
• I can share that with them, and she can share it on with you. So I've been a mentor.
• So thank you both for being here, for sharing, and for introducing this topic to the committee.
• Let me share my screen. Let’s see if this works. There we go.
• So if you'd like to, once I have a date in place, I'd like to... ...to resource share.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Disability Employment Subcommittee of the Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Persons with Disabilities met and began with roll call, but did not have a quorum, so approval of prior minutes and an inspirational quote were tabled. A planned presentation from a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs employee was canceled shortly before the meeting, and the agenda shifted to an informal discussion with two Treasury employees, Steve Kroder and Bill Collievis, about veterans with disabilities in the workplace. Kroder and Collievis described barriers veterans face, including stigma, employer misunderstanding, the need for frequent medical appointments, invisible disabilities such as PTSD and other service-connected conditions, and challenges for Guard and Reserve members balancing service with civilian work. They also discussed supportive practices in public employment, the need for better outreach to employers, the role of local veterans service officers, Military OneSource, TAP, and the importance of helping veterans navigate benefits and transition services. Commission members responded by emphasizing education, employer outreach, and possible resource-sharing through the commission’s website and toolkit. The committee then heard a presentation from Commonwealth Corporation on its Young Adults with Disabilities employment grant program. Staff explained the program’s funding, eligibility, training and placement model, and data from the prior cycle, including participant demographics, completion rates, credential attainment, employment outcomes, and wages. Members discussed benefits counseling, underemployment definitions, stigma around addiction as a disability category, and the need to connect grantees and participants with work incentives and benefits information. Commonwealth Corporation said grantees now receive training on benefits impacts and that the agency is open to further partnership. The meeting ended with a brief update on a planned commission event focused on youth and young adults with disabilities, inclusive workplaces, PCAs, and job coaches. Organizers said they were still securing a venue and were considering a hybrid or virtual format, with participation from youth organizations, the PCA Council, and the Arc of Massachusetts. The subcommittee then voted to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• Let's share information. Let's get in these rooms, right?
• So that increases the state's Share to 75%.
• As the state share increases under our current law structures in California, so do the county share.
• Let's keep sharing information. We'll move on to issue number... Let's keep sharing information.
• All it's going to take is all of us sharing information, sharing stories, coming up with innovative ideas

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Sorry, I do share privileges with my computer. Thank you.
• Chair Miranda, do you have a few words you want to share? Yes.
• resources yet or share ideas if they come up before the next meeting?
• resources yet or share ideas if they come up before the next meeting?
• So don't be afraid to share what you have to share.

Summary: The Cape Verdean Cultural Center Commission met with quorum, opened with roll call, and welcomed several new commissioners from across Massachusetts, including community leaders, scholars, elected officials, and representatives from Cape Verdean organizations. Chair Miranda and the facilitators described the commission’s purpose: to study and recommend a path toward a Cape Verdean cultural center in Boston, including its organizational structure, location, programming, and feasibility study. Miranda emphasized the long effort behind the commission and said the goal is to produce a report that could support a future center with features such as an auditorium, library, recording studio, and restaurant. Commissioners discussed how to gather public input, with suggestions including visits to existing cultural institutions, traditional listening sessions in communities such as Boston, Brockton, New Bedford, Taunton, Fall River, the Cape, and the Islands, and collecting feedback at festivals and other Cape Verdean events. Members also raised the importance of involving youth, elders, artists, and local historical societies, and of correcting myths and gaps in the historical record about Cape Verdean communities in Massachusetts. Funding was discussed briefly: short-term support may come through earmarks, while larger support would likely need to be pursued through a bond bill. The group agreed to continue sharing ideas by email and through a future repository or shared platform, with meeting minutes to be circulated the following week. A motion was made and seconded to approve the February 2 meeting minutes, and the commission voted to adjourn. The next meeting was tentatively planned for early April, with a Doodle poll to be sent out to members.