Transcript Highlights:

• These deductions have a proven impact of incentivizing more families to save for college, which pays
• tuition expenses or pay back student loan debt for the 2025-2026 program year.
• My husband, no, we used a loan of $10,000 that we're still paying. Many times, Salvador...
• Salvador's boss never taught him how to collect and pay meals taxes.
• So she wanted to pay, she actually offered what she could pay and was denied.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a public hearing on bills related to income and estates, with Chairs James Eldridge and Adrian Madaro presiding and members participating in person and virtually. The committee explained hearing procedures, written testimony deadlines, and the new joint rules for acting on bills. No votes were taken during the hearing. The first major topic was increasing Massachusetts 529 college savings deductions, through House Bill 3151 and Senate Bill 2066. Brad Freeman of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts testified in support, saying the current deduction has encouraged more families to save for college and should be expanded to match other states. He argued the change would help middle-income families and noted the original deduction was designed with a revenue offset and later made permanent. The committee also heard support for House Bill 3010 and Senate Bill 1963, which would exclude the federal Segal AmeriCorps Education Award from Massachusetts taxable income. Beth McGuinness and Lindsay Rooney of the Massachusetts Service Alliance said the tax creates a burden for AmeriCorps members, many of whom have low incomes and use the award directly for tuition or student loans, and that removing the tax would aid recruitment and retention. Another bill, House Bill 3062 on settlements of tax liability, drew testimony from a taxpayer, a tax practitioner, and a legal aid attorney who described the current offer-in-settlement process as too restrictive and underused; they urged changes to make tax debt resolution more equitable and more consistent with federal practice.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is really a user pay system. It is really a user pay system.
• <01:40:42.040> So, ought to be paying for. So, ought to be paying for.
• Somebody is paying does cost.
• or somebody is paying for this. or somebody is paying for this.
• We have to pay salaries. We have trucks. We have to pay salaries.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• What are we paying for?
• What are we paying for?
• disconnected because they couldn't pay disconnected because they couldn't pay their<01:38:41.199
• Because we're talking who pays for the incentives? Who pays for it?
• HEO but the profits from HEO go to pay HEO but the profits from HEO go to pay for<02:16:12.560><

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee held an informational briefing on the Public Utilities Commission’s performance-based regulation (PBR) framework and the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs’ whistleblower complaint process. Chair Jared Kohole opened the meeting, noted it was informational only with no public testimony, and explained that members would hear presentations and then have an opportunity for questions. The committee heard first from Ulupono Initiative, which provided background on why utilities are regulated, how Hawaii’s cost-of-service model and rate cases work, and why PBR was adopted to shift utility incentives away from a capital-investment bias and toward performance, efficiency, cost control, and policy goals such as renewable energy and reliability. Ulupono described Hawaii’s PBR structure as a five-year multi-year rate plan with annual revenue adjustments, a customer dividend, a Z factor for extraordinary exogenous events, and an exceptional project recovery mechanism for large projects. It also outlined performance incentive mechanisms tied to renewable portfolio standard progress, interconnection speed, reliability, and shared savings. The presentation said the current docket is evaluating a possible hybrid approach that would combine forward-looking forecasting with historical results, and Ulupono advocated for stronger incentives, arguing the current rewards are too small relative to utility revenues and should be more meaningful to better align utility behavior with legislative intent. The PUC then presented its own overview, emphasizing that the PBR docket is open and active and that the briefing was limited to the record to avoid ex parte concerns. The commission described the development of PBR in Hawaii through multiple phases beginning in 2018: an initial collaborative phase to set goals, a formal contested-case phase that produced the initial framework, later phases adding scorecards, reported metrics, and additional performance incentive mechanisms, and subsequent refinements including sunset of some mechanisms and adjustments after the August 2023 Maui wildfires. The PUC said the framework is intended to be customer-centric, administratively efficient, and protective of utility financial integrity, and that current work includes evaluating how to balance forward-looking and historical test-year approaches within the rebasing process. No votes or formal actions were taken at the briefing.

Transcript Highlights:

• In addition to tax increases, these residents are also paying more for utilities and paying for the programs
• 25 to 31 cents that IOU customers pay.
• How will they be able to afford to pay opt-out fees?
• that Massachusetts residents already have to pay for energy.
• We already pay among the highest rates in the country.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a range of energy, utility, broadband, and municipal infrastructure bills. Representative Powell supported H 3466, which would create a task force to study public ownership of utilities and alternatives to investor-owned electric and gas systems. Representative Therber supported H 3574, which would use RGGI funds to reimburse cities and towns affected by power plant decommissioning, citing lost jobs, tax revenue, and service cuts in communities such as Somerset, Plymouth, Salem, and Everett. Several witnesses from municipal light plants and related organizations testified in support of mutual aid bills, including H 3486/S 2252 and H 3330/S 2277, saying the measures would clarify protections and liability coverage for MLP workers assisting in emergencies and non-emergency work. Jim Leiden of EMWIC opposed H 3514/S 2295, saying the proposed board and governance changes would reduce local control, add burdens, and weaken confidentiality protections. A committee member asked whether the mutual aid bills had been reviewed for municipal impacts, and the witnesses said they had done due diligence. The committee also heard extensive testimony on H 3551/S 2306, the smart meter opt-out bills. Supporters argued that smart meters emit harmful wireless radiation, that some residents have developed health problems or electromagnetic sensitivity, and that opt-outs should be available without fees or penalties; several witnesses urged notification, consent, and non-transmitting analog meter options. The committee also heard testimony from municipal officials and the Massachusetts Municipal Association in support of H 3462/S 2250, which would strengthen municipal authority to enforce timely removal of double utility poles, citing safety, accessibility, and construction-delay concerns. Derek Leffert of Gateway Fiber opposed H 3450, saying it would improperly shift broadband deployment costs to competitors. At the end of testimony, the chair closed the hearing by motion and vote, with members voting aye and no opposition recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• They are either job-seeking or they have jobs that pay taxes; their parents pay taxes that subsidize
• and pay for the state university system.
• I can't for a second... ...pay for the state university system.
• They also pay full tuition, which directly subsidizes our in-state students.
• paying for it the whole time?

Summary: The committee first took up PCS for HB 1503, which would require general education courses that use technology to provide students opportunities to build digital literacy, including instruction on applications of artificial intelligence and related topics such as software engineering, computer networks, database systems, and cybersecurity as applicable to the course. It would also require high school computer science courses offered by school districts to include instruction on AI. There was no public testimony or debate, and the bill was reported favorably on a unanimous roll call vote. The committee then considered PCS for HB 1279, an education bill that the sponsor said was intended to improve consistency, oversight, and transparency while putting Florida students first. The bill drew extensive questioning and opposition over provisions affecting university admissions and funding, including a 95% Florida-resident first-time-in-college enrollment target tied to preeminent funding, a cap on nonresident students from any one country, standardized GPA weighting, limits on institution-wide graduation requirements, and changes related to accreditation references and other education programs. The sponsor argued these changes would open more seats for Florida students, preserve academic rigor, and align statutes with existing regulations and court action, while opponents said the bill would harm university competitiveness, research, revenue, faculty recruitment, and access for international and nontraditional students. Public testimony on HB 1279 was largely opposed. Speakers included a student advocate, a dental hygiene representative concerned about dual regulation of expanded-function dental programs, and faculty representatives from FSU and FAMU who warned the bill would politicize admissions and curriculum, reduce competitiveness, and create negative fiscal impacts. During debate, supporters emphasized taxpayer investment in Florida students and the need to prioritize in-state applicants, while opponents argued the bill would weaken the state university system and undermine its national standing. The committee reported PCS for HB 1279 favorably by a 12-5 vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• We pay into it all the time. facility. We pay into it all the time.
• <00:35:16.280> for homeowner would would have to pay for homeowner would would have to pay
• that pays for that removal of the tank. that pays for that removal of the tank.
• The price that we pay is the price that our customers pay.
• you pay $1,000, and that's your cap. you pay $1,000, and that's your cap.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• When an insurance policy pays out, they pay the check both to the policyholder and to the bank for the
• out they pay the check both to the pays out they pay the check both to the policy<00:18:52.640> holder
• <00:18:59.760> any all the banks are not paying any all the banks are not paying any interest
• meals for students that can afford to pay.
• that Doe pays for meals which the cost that Doe pays for meals which will<00:36:26.680> need<

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So if you depend on your job to say, pay your rent, if you own a house, pay your mortgage.
• You can't afford to pay a bond.
• us to pay them.
• Pay to go down there. Pay to park. Pay for the test.
• I had to pay a whole bunch.

Bills: HB36, HB75, HB76, HB166, HB799, HB 1135, HJR15, HJR16, HB36, HB75, HB76, HB166, HJR15, HJR16

Keywords: family violence, global positioning monitoring system, victim resources, electronic monitoring, protective orders, magistrate, criminal procedure, probable cause, written findings, law enforcement, bail bonds, bail fund, charitable bail fund, nonprofit bail organization, public funds, local government spending, political subdivision, county, city, taxpayer lawsuit

Transcript Highlights:

• What was the source of the funding used to pay her?
• What was the source of the funding used to pay her?
• To pay his other staff because he had to pay the IRS, or the IRS. It was one or the other.
• Did EEC pay you to talk to Chris Stanley? No.
• I donated another $40,000 because they needed that money to pay the IRS, or they had enough to pay the

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The hearing resumed on day two of the Legislative Ethics Board fact-finding matter involving Representative Tara Simmons. After opening remarks and confirmation that board members had not engaged in outside research or ex parte communications, Simmons’s counsel moved to dismiss two allegations at the close of the board staff’s case: that Simmons pressured the Administrative Office of the Courts to alter a contract in favor of her employer, and that she improperly combined a legislative proviso for AEJG with a personal donation to the organization. Board staff opposed the motion, arguing the evidence showed Simmons’s legislative and private conduct were intertwined and that the board had enough evidence to require a defense. After deliberation, the board denied the motion to dismiss and proceeded to hear defense testimony. The first defense witness, Sharon Navas, testified that she met Simmons through advocacy work, later hired her at the Equity and Education Coalition (EEC), and maintained written employment policies intended to separate Simmons’s legislative role from her work for EEC. Navas said Simmons was never compensated for lobbying or legislative acts, that EEC paid her from unrestricted funds, and that Simmons did not work on the AEJG dashboard project or participate in the contract dispute with Anthony Powers and Chris Stanley. Navas described the proviso request and later contract issues as separate from Simmons’s legislative duties, and said she continued to pay invoices while the project was being completed. Simmons then testified about her background, legislative career, disability accommodations, and extensive efforts to seek ethics advice before taking outside employment or pursuing provisos. She said she repeatedly consulted House ethics counsel and reviewed prior board decisions to ensure her outside work and legislative actions were separated. Simmons described her relationship with Anthony Powers, the dashboard project, the proviso process, and her understanding that the work was distinct from her legislative role. The hearing paused for lunch after part of Simmons’s direct examination, with testimony set to continue after the break.

Transcript Highlights:

• What was the source of the funding used to pay her?
• To pay his other staff because he had to pay the IRS.
• Did EEC pay you to talk to Chris Stanley? No.
• So I donated another $40,000 because they needed that money to pay the IRS, or they had enough to pay
• I donated another $40,000 because they needed that money to pay the IRS, or they had enough to pay the

Summary: The hearing resumed in the Legislative Ethics Board matter involving Tara Simmons after the board confirmed no ex parte communications had occurred overnight. Respondent’s counsel moved to dismiss two allegations at the close of the board staff’s case: that Simmons pressured the Administrative Office of the Courts to alter a contract in favor of her employer, and that she violated ethics rules by combining legislative support for AEJG with a personal donation to the organization. Board staff opposed the motion, arguing the evidence showed Simmons’s legislative and personal dealings were intertwined. After a recess for deliberation, the board denied the motion to dismiss, and the hearing moved into the defense case. The first defense witness was Sharon Navas, executive director of the Equity and Education Coalition (EEC). Navas testified that she met Simmons in 2018, later hired her, and took steps to separate Simmons’s legislative duties from her work for EEC. She said Simmons was never paid for lobbying or legislative acts, that her compensation came from unrestricted funds, and that the organization used written ethics-compliance language and a formal scope of work. Navas also described the proviso-funded dashboard project involving Anthony Powers and Chris Stanley, testifying that Simmons was not involved in the project’s day-to-day work, did not attend the meetings about the dispute, and was not part of the alleged contract disagreement. On cross-examination, staff focused on the contract documents, the dashboard work, and whether the scope of work matched the parties’ understanding. Tara Simmons then testified in her own defense. She described her background, legislative career, disability accommodations, and extensive efforts to seek ethics guidance from House counsel and board-related materials before taking outside employment or supporting provisos. She said she relied on prior ethics advice when separating her legislative role from outside work and when seeking provisos for AEJG and EEC. Simmons also addressed her relationship with Anthony Powers, describing it as a friendship rooted in criminal justice reform work and prior collaboration. The hearing was still in the middle of Simmons’s direct testimony when the transcript excerpt ended, with no final ruling on the merits or disposition of the allegations.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, this is only focusing on the lowest-paying occupations in all the states.
• occupations in all the lowest-paying occupations in all the states. states. states.
• within each of those low-paying within each of those low-paying occupations. occupations. occupations
• my car insurance, I'm not I'm not paying my car insurance, I'm not paying paying paying mortgage,<00
• their bills and they struggling to pay their bills and they work<00:58:53.720> full-time.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:14:24.880> So<00:14:25.199> we disparit pay. Um uh thank you pay.
• So we disparit pay. Um uh thank you pay.
• employer didn't pay him about $5,000. employer didn't pay him about $5,000.
• do pay in this class. would recommend that these members pay would recommend that these members pay
• pay in this class. Thank you. Okay. pay in this class. Thank you. Okay.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• everyone's going to pay them." everyone's going to pay them."
• we want to go ahead and pay dues." we want to go ahead and pay dues."
• <03:55:15.520> It pays. The second vote's necessary. It pays.
• working to increase worker pay. working to increase worker pay.
• and they don't have to pay. and they don't have to pay.

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The House opened with the pledge, roll call, and approval of the journal. Members then spent much of the morning on announcements recognizing visiting groups, including the Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance, Catholic Lobby Day participants, Vertical Skills Academy students, the Colorado Optometric Association, the Junior League of Denver, Jack and Jill of America, and advocates for HIV/AIDS harm reduction. Representative Gilchrist also highlighted HIV/AIDS and overdose statistics and urged members to meet with advocates. Representative Velasco announced an absence for Monday and Tuesday. The chamber adopted House Resolution 1002, honoring District Wildlife Manager Bob Holder for 50 years of service to Colorado wildlife. Supporters described his long career, conservation work, bear education efforts, landowner relationships, and awards, and members gave him a standing recognition. The resolution passed 62-0 with 3 excused. The House then received committee reports and moved to third reading on several bills. House Bill 1081, concerning electric transmission system optimization, passed 42-20 with 3 excused. House Bill 1228, increasing access to marriage and family therapist licensure, passed 62-0 with 3 excused. House Bill 1120, implementing mobile home taxation task force recommendations and extending redemption protections for mobile home owners, passed 40-2 with 3 excused after debate over its tax policy effects and fairness to seniors and disabled veterans. House Bill 1084, expanding voter transparency requirements for initiated statewide ballot measures, was debated at length with opponents arguing it would burden citizen initiatives and implicate First Amendment rights; the transcript cuts off before a final vote on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• uh we don't want the pay-to-play. uh we don't want the pay-to-play.
• uh, to pay to play. uh, to pay to play.
• Pay to play, pay to play.
• So, pay to play, pay to play.
• specifically around pay to play. specifically around pay to play.

Bills: HF4252

Keywords: higher education, student aid, financial aid, grant programs, scholarships, Office of Higher Education, Minnesota State, University of Minnesota, community college, technical college, postsecondary institution, college affordability, student fees, athletic facilities, competitive athletics, developmental education, remedial courses, pregnant students, parenting students, priority registration

Transcript Highlights:

• Our pay date is on a Friday.
• Now, we pay our payrolls on Wednesday. Now, we pay our payrolls that<00:37:37.680> Friday.
• Without pay until we get paid. They stood up. They're driving people without pay.
• say, you know, um I'm sorry I can't pay say, you know, um I'm sorry I can't pay you<01:32:20.719
• that they would pay me. that they would pay me.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the low end of my estimates it would pay the low end of my estimates it would pay for<00:04:19.000
• free bus cards and so why would they pay free bus cards and so why would they pay if<00:13:00.199
• We pay $1,200 every month for child care for Dean, and we also pay $1,200 every month for child care
• for childcare for Dean and we also pay for childcare for Dean and we also pay 1,200<00:56:13.000
• car repairs pay their own necessary car repairs pay their own children's<01:20:32.840> activities

Bills: HF1367, HF2732, HF1897, HF1424, HF1383, HF2728, HF2863, HF1685, HF2929

Keywords: child maltreatment, child abuse, neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, sex trafficking, labor trafficking, human trafficking, child protection, local welfare agency, county social services, Minnesota Department of Human Services, judicial review, district court appeal, venue, out-of-state abuse, cross-border investigation, Minnesota child welfare, family assessment, maltreatment determination

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:05:01.880> on<00:05:02.120> those loans and are still paying on those loans and
• have to come before the legislature to get a waiver to pay anybody more than the governor.
• legislature to um to get a waiver to pay legislature to um to get a waiver to pay anybody<00:19:
• the primary responsibility for paying paying<01:09:22.279> for<01:09:22.560> postsecondary
• <01:09:23.520> education<01:09:24.199> in paying for postsecondary education in paying

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Currently, rail workers must take 14 days off without pay before they are eligible for minimum sick time
• It really is quite incredible that you have to take 14 days off, without pay, before you're eligible
• several years without a contract, and that's years of their wages not keeping up with inflation, a pay
• every year, and losing valued employees who simply can't... ...wages not keeping up with inflation, a pay
• Okay, and I assume that the growth of those paying into it is at 25 percent? I assume not. Uh, no.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on employment rights legislation, especially the Protect Labor Act (H. 2086/S. 1327), which would create state-level labor protections if federal private-sector labor law is weakened or struck down, and would also add protections such as bans on captive audience meetings, virtual elections, stronger misclassification rules, and protections for health care workers and immigrant workers. Supporters from the AFL-CIO, nurses, SEIU, UAW, building trades, teachers, graduate workers, and policy groups argued that the bill is needed because of Trump administration actions, Project 2025, and threats to the NLRA and NLRB. They described the bill as a “trigger” law meant to preserve organizing and bargaining rights in Massachusetts if federal protections disappear or if the NLRB declines jurisdiction over certain workers. The committee also heard testimony on bills to restore a limited right to strike for certain public employees (H. 2078/S. 1311 or related filings). Supporters, including a representative, educators, and labor advocates, said the current ban on public employee strikes weakens good-faith bargaining and leaves workers without leverage to secure wages, staffing, and student supports. They argued that strikes are used as a last resort and that legalizing them under defined conditions would improve negotiations and better reflect the realities of recent teacher strikes in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Municipal Association opposed the strike bills, warning that public employee strikes are already prohibited by state law, that strikes disrupt students and communities, and that local governments face budget constraints under Proposition 2 1/2. The committee also took testimony on paid family and medical leave bills (S. 1351/H. 2110 and S. 1352), which would improve notice to workers, expand public reporting on claim denials and demographics, and fix a technical definition issue that has limited access for some covered contract workers. Witnesses from legal aid, policy organizations, and a small business owner said the changes would improve transparency, equity, and access to benefits without imposing major burdens on employers. Additional testimony supported a railroad sick leave bill and a private construction transparency bill, with Senator Keenan urging favorable action on both. No votes were taken during the hearing; members asked questions, and several witnesses and legislators requested favorable reports on the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm just curious if everyone would pay it or not pay it. Thank you.
• I'm just curious if everyone would pay it or not pay it. But, okay, thank you. Thank you.
• to pay.
• I need you to kind of pay attention to, if you don't mind.
• I'm not paying taxes on those loyalty points.

Bills: HR295, HR296, HR297, HR298, HR299, HR300, HR301, HR302, HR303, HR304, HR305, HR306, HR307, HCR115, HCR116, HCR117, HR286, HR287, HR288, HR290, HR291, HR292, HR293, HR294, SCR61, SCR68, SB121, SB250, SB348, SB444, SB485, HR252, HR253, HCR96, HCR103, HCR108, SB268, SB283, SB414, HCR98, HR179, HR223, HR225, HR274, HCR89, HCR26, HB250, HB265, HB339, HB427, HB445, HB463, HB468, HB606, HB639, HB649, HB665, HB746, HB781, HB853, HB861, HB872, HB886, HB916, HB937, HB1054, HB1068, HB1117, HB1237, HB74, HB108, HB956, HB1085, HB1137, HB75, SB39, SB99, SB111, SB112, SB124, SB134, SB174, SB189, SB190, SB201, SB233, SB236, SB258, SB270, SB273, SB288, SB307, SB313, SB320, SB321, SB325, SB326, SB331, SB339, SB341, SB345, SB346, SB347, SB353, SB357, SB359, SB387, SB393, SB401, SB415, SB419, SB422, SB426, SB435, SB437, SB440, SB451, SB464, SB470, SB487, SB488, SB495, SB504, SB505, SB518, SB523, HR84, HB646, HB998, HB1191, SB78, SB81, SB97, SB100, SB109, SB123, SB125, SB208, SB385, SB479, SB56, SB163, SB197, HB901, HR20, HR74, HR168, HCR65, HCR71, HB284, HB302, HB306, HB341, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB603, HB605, HB614, HB625, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB798, HB911, HB955, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1240, HB1255, SB82, SB89, HB134, HB258, HB359, HB782, SB29, SB42, SB43, SB149, SB382, SB441

Keywords: Energy Caucus, Louisiana House of Representatives, energy policy, fossil fuels, oil and gas, natural gas, renewable energy, solar, wind power, nuclear power, legislative caucus, industry group, economic development, state legislature, House resolution, energy sector, victims' services, criminal justice, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Act No. 370

Transcript Highlights:

• I’d love to see... and then they're not paying.
• But we have other constituents as well: businesses who pay the bills.
• The injured workers and the businesses who are paying the bills.
• We're paying more. We pay more. We're not doing well. That's good.
• So with that negotiation, somebody's paying $70,000 for that bill.

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 408 by Senator Myers, a major workers’ compensation overhaul centered on creating an all-claims medical database, requiring electronic reporting and billing, and modernizing fee schedule and claims data collection. Myers said the bill was designed to improve transparency, reduce disputes, address outliers and abuse, and help injured workers return to work faster. The committee adopted technical amendments, then considered a large amendment set combining portions of House bills 780 and 1101, which added preliminary determination procedures, fraud language, temporary total disability and supplemental earnings benefit changes, and a fallback deadline for the department to establish a fee schedule if no agreement is reached by 2029. Several members and witnesses objected that the amendments were dropped late and would turn SB 408 into an omnibus bill; supporters argued the package was the best chance for comprehensive reform. After debate, the committee adopted the amendments and reported SB 408 favorably as amended. Testimony on SB 408 was sharply divided. Supporters, including some providers and injured-worker advocates, said the bill’s core value was transparency through the database and that the system needed modernization and a better fee schedule. Opponents argued the added amendments would burden pro se claimants, expand litigation, and weaken injured workers’ rights, especially through fraud and preliminary hearing provisions. Committee members also questioned whether the combined package was germane and whether it should be allowed to move as a single reform measure. Louisiana Workforce Commission staff explained the timeline for data collection, electronic billing, dispute rules, and eventual fee schedule rulemaking, and said the department could execute the law as amended. The committee then turned to House Bill 585 by Representative Chasson, concerning workplace violence and safety plans for small-box discount retailers. The bill was revised through a substitute that required covered retailers to develop and submit a written workforce safety plan, or submit an existing plan if one already existed. Representative Glorioso raised concerns that requiring a written safety plan could create new civil liability under Louisiana’s assumption-of-duty doctrine and increase litigation and insurance costs. Chasson responded that the intent was simply to encourage safety planning and that businesses already had such plans. The committee discussed possible narrowing language, but the transcript ends before a final disposition on HB 585 is shown.