Transcript Highlights:

• By campus.
• are newer on our campus.
• are newer on our campus.
• Working on campus is a very positive indicator. These, and living on campus...
• versus off campus.

Summary: The committee first reviewed the 2024-25 tuition waiver report for the North Dakota University System. Staff explained that waivers were reported for degree-seeking students and broken out by residency, institution, and waiver type. Members asked about partial versus full waivers, institutional discretion, athletic waivers, and whether campuses have published guardrails or transparency requirements. Staff said most waivers are set by institutions, with some statutory and board-required categories, and that athletic waivers are a small share of total waiver dollars. The report showed total gross tuition of $354.5 million, tuition waived of $38.9 million, and 11,193 of 42,040 students receiving some waiver. Members also discussed how waivers affect net tuition revenue, housing and food collections, and whether campuses are using waivers strategically compared with scholarships and other funding sources. The committee then heard a presentation on tuition rates by campus and State Board policy. Staff explained the board’s tuition factors for resident, Minnesota reciprocity, contiguous-state/U.S. nonresident, and international students, and noted that campuses often seek exceptions based on program-specific competition and enrollment goals. Members asked whether rates are based on cost or competition, and staff said campuses typically bring forward estimates and market comparisons when requesting special rates. The presentation also reviewed general fund appropriations versus net tuition revenue by campus, and members discussed how local tuition decisions and waivers do not directly affect the state funding formula, though they do affect institutional revenue and reserves. Questions were also raised about the Higher Learning Commission’s financial composite indicator and how it differs from the more intuitive reserve and revenue figures. The committee next received a broad overview of non-higher-education entities affiliated with the State Board of Higher Education, beginning with NDSU agriculture-related units. Dr. Greg Lardy described the State Board of Agricultural Research and Education, the NDSU Extension Service, the Agricultural Experiment Station, and the branch research centers, emphasizing their statewide role in crop and livestock research, extension education, and county-based outreach. He outlined funding mixes for extension, the experiment station, and branch stations, noting that grants and contracts support both research and education, while the agronomy seed farm is self-funded through seed sales. Members asked about the new and vacant FTE pool, R1 research status, matching requirements for grants, and whether state appropriations count toward research expenditures. Dr. Lardy also highlighted major research impacts, including crop varieties, virtual fencing, AI-assisted weed control, and NDAWN weather data. The Northern Crops Institute and the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute also presented. NCI described its role in market development, technical services, and education for regional agriculture, its governance through the Northern Crops Council, and its funding from state appropriations, other states, and earned revenue. Members asked about the source of out-of-state funding, intellectual property, and the institute’s international reach. UGPTI then outlined its transportation research, federal and state funding structure, and work on road and bridge condition assessments, travel demand modeling, and workforce training. No votes were taken during the portion of the meeting reflected in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you're a student living off campus and houses on campus that using it and those purposes, the same
• And you're off campus premise, junior on campus promise. All a question. Yes, he go back and forth.
• that I may be shot on my campus.
• Imagine an escalation on campus. These on on this bill.
• its campus where you have to go through a controlled area in order to access the campus.

Transcript Highlights:

• campus may believe that it does.
• If we leave articulation to thousands of individual course-by-course and campus-by-campus decisions,
• So not all programs exist at every campus, right?
• meet two-to-one as a campus.
• after campus.

Summary: The committee held an oversight hearing on a state audit examining California’s community college transfer process and whether streamlining it could improve access to bachelor’s degrees. Opening remarks from legislators emphasized that California’s transfer system is central to equity and workforce development, but that only about one in five transfer-intending community college students complete a transfer within four years. Members highlighted disparities by race, region, campus, and major, and pointed to confusion created by differing requirements across the UC, CSU, and community college systems, including limits and inconsistencies in the Associate Degree for Transfer (ADT), TAG, and major-specific prerequisites. State Auditor’s staff said the audit found that while UC and CSU systemwide enroll more transfer students than the Master Plan target, individual campuses and high-demand STEM programs often do not. The audit identified barriers including unclear and varying course requirements, limited counseling and education plans, insufficient counselor staffing at some campuses, and weak equity plans. It also found that many students never even apply because they do not accumulate enough units or cannot navigate the process. The auditor described examples where transfer students with strong preparation were denied at selective campuses and noted that articulation alignment across systems remains limited. Representatives from UC, CSU, and the Community Colleges responded that transfer remains a top priority and described ongoing reforms. UC cited a new public dashboard, data-sharing agreements, new transfer pathways, and an ADT pilot at UCLA, while saying campus-level capacity and program differences limit how much can be standardized from the system office. CSU said it admits more than 90% of eligible transfer applicants, is expanding transfer planning tools and direct outreach, and is implementing SB 640’s Transfer Success Pathway Program. Community Colleges said transfer reform must focus on clearer credit mobility, more consistent articulation, and broader ADT adoption. Members pressed the systems on inconsistent major requirements, the need for better coordination, and whether campuses are fully prioritizing transfer students; no votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And it was not just campus.
• And it was not just campus.
• campus safe for folks to return to campus.
• </c> And it was not just campus.
• </c><01:17:40.080><c> master</c> campus has a campus physical master campus has a campus physical master

Committee: House Higher Education Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• as a whole, here's our expectation for how much money we want you spending on NAGPRA, campus by campus
• and collaborate with campus officials.
• by campus?
• The campus NAGPRA committees review and vote on all campus repatriation decisions.
• Policies on paper are not enough when implementation varies from campus to campus.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on the University of California’s compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and CalNAGPRA, based on the California State Auditor’s April 2025 report and updates from UC and tribal representatives. Committee members and tribal witnesses emphasized the moral urgency of returning ancestral remains and cultural items, criticized the lack of clear timelines and accountability, and noted that other institutions have repatriated collections more quickly. The State Auditor said UC still has major gaps in identifying collections, completing campus searches, setting measurable deadlines, securing items, and fully using repatriation funding; the auditor projected that some campuses could take until 2037, 2041, 2053, or even 2089 to finish at current rates, and said 12 of 19 audit recommendations remained open. The Native American Heritage Commission said progress has been too slow and that new CalNAGPRA enforcement regulations are being finalized. UC Office of the President and campus leaders responded that the university has made substantial changes since 2019, including a revised NAGPRA policy, expanded staffing, new committees with tribal representation, more consultation, and more financial support for tribes. UC said it has repatriated more than 9,000 ancestors, 280,000 associated funerary objects, and 59,000 other cultural items systemwide, and that it is continuing to implement audit recommendations and improve transparency through a repatriation dashboard and funding information. Berkeley, San Diego, Riverside, and Santa Barbara each described campus-specific progress, including more staff, more consultations, more site reviews, and updated timelines; Berkeley said it is on track to publish remaining ancestors by the federal deadline, San Diego said it has repatriated 73% of remains and about 53% of cultural items, Riverside said nearly all known ancestors and associated funerary objects have been noticed or repatriated, and Santa Barbara said it has restructured its program and added staffing and tracking systems. Members pressed UC on why timelines remain so long, why some campuses still lack clear completion dates, and whether the Legislature should use budget tools to increase accountability. The auditor suggested the Legislature could consider stronger funding conditions and clearer expectations, while some members noted constitutional limits on earmarking UC’s base budget. UC said repatriation must be tribally led, that consultation and reburial can take time, and that some delays stem from incomplete records, overlapping tribal claims, and the need to reunite items with ancestors. No formal vote or action was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:24:07.640><c> every</c> Youth that are on our campus every Youth that are on our campus every
• </c> students because the close Campus students because the close Campus Community<00:29:32.039><c> was
• </c><00:31:13.840><c> and</c> chancellor at the Rochester campus and chancellor at the Rochester campus
• </c><00:56:51.200><c> is</c> just opened on the Morehead campus is just opened on the Morehead campus
• </c> University of Minnesota T City's campus University of Minnesota T City's campus I<01:39:56.199><

Committee: Senate Higher Education

Transcript Highlights:

• Whitehall Campus provides treatment through two programs.
• Whitehall Campus provides treatment through two programs.
• The cost of upgrading this campus has grown tremendously in the last five years.
• Campus and the Kearney YRTC and look forward to this hearing.
• Family visits are on campus, and they also have off-campus local Lincoln and meetings on Wednesdays and

Summary: The Health and Human Services Committee held an invited-testimony hearing on LR 425, which examines the Whitehall campus in Lincoln and possible long-term options for youth currently served there. Chair Brian Hardin explained that Whitehall houses two separate programs for adolescent males: a substance use program and a youth-who-sexually-harm program. Testimony from DHHS officials described Whitehall as a Joint Commission-accredited psychiatric residential treatment facility (PRTF) that provides about 40 hours of weekly programming, family involvement, school services, and community reintegration activities. Officials said the department is evaluating whether the programs should remain at Whitehall or move to another state-owned facility, with Hastings described as the department’s preferred alternative because it is more residential in design than a youth rehabilitation treatment center (YRTC).

Transcript Highlights:

• Whitehall Campus provides treatment through two programs.
• Whitehall Campus provides treatment through two programs.
• The cost of upgrading this campus has grown tremendously in the last five years.
• Family visits are on campus, and they also have off-campus local Lincoln and meetings on Wednesdays and
• The current PRTF facilities, what we're calling the Whitehall campus,...

Committee: Unicameral Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Twin Cities campus and the Morris Campus Twin Cities campus and the Morris Campus Student<00:08:
• Paul campus.
• Paul campus.
• Paul campus.
• Paul campus.

Transcript Highlights:

• as a whole, here's our expectation for how much money we want you spending on NAGPRA, campus by campus
• , collaborate with campus officials.
• Office of the President where these goals are being measured, or is it just campus by campus?
• The campus NAGPRA committees review and vote on all campus repatriation decisions.
• Policies on paper are not enough when implementation varies from campus to campus.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, I was just curious: is this on the main campus or a satellite campus?
• , in that footprint of campus. ...building will be located on the main campus adjacent to the Walton
• The campus completed a study about a year ago just to look for similar opportunities on campus.
• We don't have a sales team on campus to be able to... ...on campus.
• We don't have a sales team on campus to be able to... ...campus.

Committee: All ALC-REVIEW

Summary: The review subcommittee met to consider a supplemental agenda, methods of finance, an alternative delivery project, discretionary grants, and a large slate of construction, out-of-state, and in-state contracts. The supplemental item was a $2.6 million out-of-state contract with Tyler Technologies for a mobile app that would let citizens access state services through a single sign-on, initially for DFA vehicle and licensing services, with possible expansion to other agencies. Members also reviewed five methods of finance, including University of Arkansas projects for roof and cooling tower replacements, a new $100 million academic classroom building at U of A Fayetteville, a police department renovation at UA Fort Smith, and a boiler/chiller replacement at Hope-Texarkana. Questions focused on project timing, why some items were being reviewed after work had begun, and the high estimated cost of the Fayetteville classroom building; DFA explained that projects under $250,000 are not reviewed and that the larger project was still in design and would later seek a guaranteed maximum price. The committee also reviewed two DHS discretionary grants: one for targeted youth advocacy in southwest Arkansas and another adding $582,000 for family-centered treatment training and implementation. In the services contract section, members discussed construction-related contracts, including an ASMSA electrical scope increase tied to three-phase power requirements and the U of A Fayetteville architect contract for the classroom building. Out-of-state contracts included major items such as ACT Education’s $17 million amendment to provide required pre-ACT testing for 9th and 10th graders, a $12.5 million DFA contract for rural health transformation grant management, DHS’s $16.5 million EBT services contract with updated chip-card and fraud-prevention features, and ADH’s special procurement for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey. The committee also reviewed U of A system consulting contracts for financial advisory and sponsorship strategy work, with university officials saying the outside expertise was needed for specialized planning and revenue-generation efforts. In-state contracts covered corrections reentry services, nursing board investigations, foster care and child welfare services, DHS office janitorial work, emergency management radio system expansion, veterans’ home nursing staffing, and UAMS grants consulting. A lengthy exchange centered on the Department of Corrections’ reentry housing contract, with members pressing officials about vacant beds and urging fuller use of the program, while corrections staff said placements depend on screening and eligibility. Another discussion addressed the balance between out-of-state and in-state contracting, with a member noting the large dollar volume going to out-of-state vendors and asking whether Arkansas vendors receive any preference; State Procurement said current law does not allow an in-state preference. The committee approved the supplemental agenda, the methods of finance, the alternative delivery project, the discretionary grants, and the contract lists, and then received routine reports and an emergency action report before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• campus may believe that they do.
• If we leave articulation to thousands of individual course-by-course and campus-by-campus decisions,
• So not all programs exist at every campus, right?
• two to one as a campus.
• after campus.

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Audit

Transcript Highlights:

• And from every campus president that I've talked to, it remains unwavering at the campus level as well
• Many are choosing not to come to campus at all.
• Many are choosing not to come to campus at all.
• can finally access on-campus care.
• Now, like many students, she's looking for on-campus or off-campus housing for her second year.

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee held an oversight hearing on how federal actions are affecting California higher education, with opening remarks from the chair and members emphasizing the importance of state-federal shared governance and the need to protect access, affordability, and campus diversity. The first panel included leaders from the CSU, University of the Pacific, California Community Colleges, and UC, who described broad impacts from federal grant terminations, changes to student aid, loan limits, visa and immigration policy, and proposed reductions to research support. Testimony focused on the elimination of Grad PLUS loans, caps on Parent PLUS and Pell-related changes, the loss or suspension of hundreds of grants, and the resulting harm to student support services, research, workforce pipelines, food assistance, and health care training. UC and CSU representatives warned of major losses in research funding, indirect cost reimbursement, and student opportunities, while community college leaders highlighted uncertainty around federal grants and the need to maintain services for low-income, first-generation, undocumented, and other vulnerable students. Committee members asked how the state could respond, including through intersegmental partnerships, dual enrollment, transfer pathways, and support for basic needs and nutrition programs. Witnesses said California could help by sustaining financial aid, protecting minority-serving institution programs, and investing in research, housing, and workforce development. Several speakers stressed that federal changes were creating instability for students and campuses, and that the effects would likely be long-lasting, especially in health care, teaching, STEM, and social work pipelines. A second panel then focused on equitable access. The California Student Aid Commission described state efforts such as the $3.9 billion investment in aid programs, the Cal Grant system, the Dream Act, and possible reforms to better serve adult learners, foster youth, undocumented students, and students with dependents. The Los Angeles Community College District reported that federal cuts and policy shifts are discouraging students from applying for aid, threatening TRIO and MSI/HSI-funded services, and reducing support for basic needs, counseling, and workforce programs. The Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities and the CSU Academic Senate echoed concerns about FAFSA confusion, international student restrictions, grant losses, and the erosion of equity-focused programs. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and discussed possible state responses.

Transcript Highlights:

• This campus currently offers similar services.
• And I know that there was some state money to build the Hope campus in the beginning.
• And I know that there was some state money to build the Hope campus in the beginning.
• And I know that there was some state money to build the Hope campus in the beginning.
• So we're just looking forward to this campus opening. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Committee: Senate Commerce and Labor

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> campus buildings. campus buildings.
• The two were detained off campus.
• The A3 added the Board of Regents are needed to be on a campus. needed to be on a campus.
• or near campus buildings.
• Surge, and we're going to campus.

Committee: Senate Higher Education

Transcript Highlights:

• Because you went to this 168-acre campus, and then you're going to one house.
• The Brayton School is on the Canton campus, is run by DESE.
• , to use Governor Healey's words, the reimagination of this campus.
• Develop mental health treatment facilities on campus.
• Develop mental health treatment facilities on campus.

Summary: The special legislative commission on the future of Pappas Rehabilitation Hospital for Children held a hybrid public hearing focused on the hospital’s future, admissions, staffing, infrastructure, and whether the facility should be preserved, expanded, or reimagined. Opening remarks from legislators, commissioners, parents, and union representatives emphasized that Pappas provides a unique combination of medical, rehabilitative, educational, and residential services for children with complex needs, and several speakers argued that the hospital is effectively being depopulated through reduced admissions and ongoing discharges despite public assurances that it remains open. Multiple speakers urged the commission to extend its authorization and continue its work before any closure or major change can occur. Testimony from labor leaders, including AFSCME, SEIU Local 509, and the Massachusetts Nurses Association, described a “silent closure” in practice, with staff reporting confusion about the hospital’s status, declining census numbers, blocked admissions, and uncertainty about the workforce’s future. They called for immediate action to stop admission denials and unnecessary discharges, and some proposed short-term solutions such as temporary modular structures to address infrastructure barriers and allow admissions to resume. Parents and former patients testified that Pappas provided life-changing independence, specialized therapy, and campus-based supports that they said could not be replicated elsewhere, and they criticized alternative placements as inadequate. Commissioner Robert Goldstein of the Department of Public Health said the administration supports keeping Pappas open and funded while the commission works, but he argued that admissions must comply with hospital-level-of-care rules and that the campus’s deteriorating infrastructure limits the kinds of children who can safely be served there. He said the department is continuing admissions for appropriate patients, working to expand outreach and services, and exploring long-term options, including broader statewide models of care. Commissioners pressed him on whether discharge status or lack of a clear discharge plan had been used as a barrier to admission, and requested de-identified data on patients recommended for admission but denied. No formal votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• campus may believe that it does.
• If we leave articulation to thousands of individual course-by-course and campus-by-campus decisions,
• So not all programs exist at every campus, right?
• meet two-to-one as a campus.
• after campus.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit Committee held an oversight hearing on a state audit of California’s community college transfer process, with members and witnesses broadly agreeing that transfer pathways remain too complex and inconsistent. Opening remarks emphasized that community colleges serve a large, diverse, often first-generation and low-income student population, but only about one in five transfer-intending students move to a UC, CSU, or other university within four years. Members highlighted disparities by race, region, campus, and major, and pointed to the Associate Degree for Transfer, TAG, and Cal-GETC as helpful but incomplete tools because requirements still vary across campuses and systems. State Auditor’s Office staff said the audit found that while UC and CSU overall enroll substantial numbers of transfer students, individual campuses and high-demand programs often do not, especially in STEM fields. They described barriers including missing prerequisite courses, unclear information, limited counseling, and inconsistent articulation between campuses. The audit used a computer science example to show how different UC and CSU campuses require different courses for the same major. The audit issued 22 recommendations, with 10 fully implemented and four partially implemented; remaining work centers on articulation, counseling, data sharing, and better use of ASSIST. UC, CSU, and the Community Colleges each said they support transfer and are taking steps to improve it. UC cited a new public dashboard, data-sharing agreements, new transfer pathways, and an ADT pilot at UCLA, while saying campus capacity and program differences limit systemwide mandates. CSU pointed to its strategic plan goals, the Transfer Success Pathway program, direct admissions outreach, and efforts to expand ADT alignment and credit applicability, while acknowledging that many students never reach the application stage. Community Colleges emphasized that transfer reform is central to equity and baccalaureate access, and called for stronger common course numbering, broader ADT acceptance, and more student-centered articulation. Members pressed the systems on why more uniform requirements and better coordination have not been achieved, and on how to reduce barriers for placebound and working students.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> available at their high school campus. available at their high school campus.
• </c> to just stay at their high school campus to just stay at their high school campus and<00:20:25.920
• . campus. campus.
• So, we set out to be kind of campus.
• </c><00:50:08.400><c> students</c> Over 80% of Rochester campus students Over 80% of Rochester campus

Committee: Senate Higher Education

Transcript Highlights:

• And from every campus president that I’ve talked to, remains unwavering at the campus level as well.
• And from every campus president that I've talked to remains unwavering at the campus level as well.
• Many are choosing not to come to campus at all.
• can finally access on-campus care.
• Now, like many students, she's looking for on-campus and off-campus housing for her second year.

Committee: House Higher Education

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee held an oversight hearing on the impact of federal actions on California higher education, with opening remarks from the chair and members emphasizing shared governance, student access, and the importance of protecting California’s public systems. The first panel included leaders from CSU, UC, California Community Colleges, and the University of the Pacific, who described major disruptions from federal policy changes, including grant terminations, changes to Pell and loan programs, the elimination of Grad PLUS loans, tighter loan limits, and uncertainty around immigration, CalFresh/SNAP, and Medicaid-related rules. UC and CSU leaders said federal research and student-support cuts threaten research capacity, workforce pipelines, and services for low-income, first-generation, undocumented, and international students, while the community colleges highlighted uncertainty around TRIO, HSI/MSI/AANAPISI grants and the need to preserve student services and economic mobility. Members asked about the scale of funding losses, intersegmental partnerships, workforce impacts, indirect cost caps, H-1B hiring costs, and the effect of federal changes on health care and research. Witnesses said the federal environment has created instability, delayed planning, and could reduce access to graduate and professional education, especially in health fields and other high-need professions. Several witnesses urged the Legislature to support research bonds, housing and capital outlay, and continued state investment to offset federal retrenchment. The committee also discussed how cuts could affect student debt, food insecurity, and the diversity of future cohorts, with witnesses warning that the changes could narrow access and weaken California’s workforce pipeline for years. The second panel focused on equitable access. The California Student Aid Commission described state efforts such as Cal Grant, the Middle Class Scholarship, the Golden State Teacher Grant, and a proposed state FAFSA alternative for students who cannot access federal aid, while urging reforms to Cal Grant, better integration with CalFresh, and more support for foster youth and adult learners. The Los Angeles Community College District reported that federal cuts and policy uncertainty are discouraging students from applying for aid, threatening TRIO and MSI/HSI-funded services, and putting basic needs, transfer support, and workforce programs at risk. The Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities said federal loan caps, research cuts, and attacks on DEI and HSI funding are harming access and retention, especially for first-generation and low-income students, and called for stronger state support, including transfer aid and a state-backed loan option. The CSU Academic Senate also testified that abrupt federal changes to MSI and related programs have disrupted student research, summer programs, and equity-focused initiatives, with one campus example losing $2.7 million in student-centered funding on short notice.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then also with campus police.
• with both the fire. and the campus police.
• Part of that prevention should incorporate even off-campus, within the campus jurisdiction, to ensure
• campus as well.
• They are open, and students are on campus.

Committee: House Legislative Health & Human Services Committee