Transcript Highlights:

• Today we will review with you our project objectives and recommendations.
• Additional reviews conducted and other committee topics reviewed.
• And then in 2021, we also did an acuity shift review.
• And then in 2021, we also did an acuity shift review.
• Additional applications are reviewed once funding from appeals is able to be released.

Summary: The committee first heard an update on North Dakota’s Interagency Council on Homelessness and Continuum of Care funding. Jennifer Henderson of the North Dakota Housing Finance Agency reported that homelessness remains driven by tight housing markets, low incomes, rising rents, and barriers to rental assistance, public benefits, and disability determinations. She said the state’s one-time North Dakota Homeless Grant is serving all regions but reaches far fewer households than the former Rent Help program, and that aging homelessness, shelter staffing shortages, and limited affordable units are growing concerns. Members discussed the need for more housing supply, better coordination with Health and Human Services, landlord engagement, reentry housing, and possible continued one-time funding for the $10 million Homeless Grant and $25 million Housing Incentive Fund. Henderson also warned that federal Continuum of Care funding is uncertain, with HUD expected to issue a new notice June 1 and possible shifts away from permanent supportive housing toward transitional housing and other models. The committee then took testimony on accessibility of government services for people who are blind, visually impaired, deaf, or hard of hearing. Paul Olson of North Dakota Vision Services School for the Blind described the school’s services for infants, children, and adults, including screenings, mobility training, assistive technology, and outreach across the state. He said the agency works closely with Vocational Rehabilitation and is also involved in improving website and document accessibility, especially for PDF materials. Public testimony highlighted barriers such as inaccessible CAPTCHA systems, online forms, driver’s license requirements on job applications, and limited transportation in rural areas. A deaf resident urged broader use of video remote interpreting and video relay services, along with training so people know how to use them effectively. Finally, Kay Larson presented the final report on the child care provider licensing study. The report recommended streamlining North Dakota’s child care licensing structure into three provider types plus a preschool designation, while preserving health and safety standards and maintaining eligibility for child care assistance. The committee discussed simplifying training and qualification rules, revising ratio and group-size requirements, and adjusting age bands for infants and toddlers. The report also noted that some changes would require statutory amendments and later administrative rule changes, with a transition period likely extending through 2029. No formal votes were taken in the transcript, but the committee accepted the updates and scheduled follow-up presentations for a later meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:45:35.560><c> the</c> on Appropriations met and reviewed the on Appropriations met and reviewed
• c> the</c><01:09:45.920><c> amendment</c> Ways and Means reviewed the amendment Ways and Means reviewed
• A mandatory PUC review every two years and authority for the PUC to reopen reviews for good cause or
• A mandatory PUC review every rationale.
• </c><01:20:45.200><c> the</c> Infrastructure Committee reviewed the Infrastructure Committee reviewed

Transcript Highlights:

• The trauma medical review committee should reflect that.
• ><c> committee</c> The trauma medical review committee The trauma medical review committee should<01:
• Third, Trauma Medical Review Committee. If this sounds duplicative and overwhelming, you're right.
• Third, Trauma Medical Review Committee. If this sounds duplicative and overwhelming, you're right.
• </c><01:52:32.239><c> work</c> another study committee to review work another study committee to review

Transcript Highlights:

• Step two, expeditious review.
• </c> official records to begin its review. official records to begin its review.
• </c><01:08:47.199><c> The</c> Step two, expeditious review. The Step two, expeditious review.
• </c><01:10:36.239><c> that's</c> trienal comprehensive review that's trienal comprehensive review that's
• </c> services, but if a whoever has reviewed services, but if a whoever has reviewed the<01:19:16.880

Committee: House Primary and Secondary Education

Transcript Highlights:

• The third category of changes has to do with the review of policies by counties, cities, and towns.
• The requirement that cities, towns, counties, and law enforcement review their policies related to an
• After reviewing the record, I discovered a more problematic conviction for immigration purposes.
• Elevating the Office of Equity's role from reviewing to providing a critical analysis would... ...of
• by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee, JLARC, which recommended in December 2025 that

Bills: HB2157 , HB2351 , HB2365 , HB2357 , HB2446 , HB2523 , HB2606

Committee: House Technology, Economic Development, & Veterans

Keywords: artificial intelligence, AI regulation, algorithmic discrimination, high-risk AI, machine learning, generative AI, synthetic content, impact assessment, risk management policy, consumer protection, civil rights, discrimination, facial recognition, automated decision-making, deployers, developers, Washington RCW, Title 19 RCW, employment, housing

Transcript Highlights:

• We get a complaint, our intake slash Attorney Consumer Assistance Program reviews the complaint.
• We get a complaint, our intake slash attorney consumer assistance program, reviews the complaint.
• review?
• The grievance committee holds a hearing or reviews all the information that it has and takes action.
• They review the advertisements for compliance with our rules.

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Summary: The Judiciary Committee met with a quorum present and Senator Thompson excused. The committee first considered Senate Bill 48 by Senator Garcia on judicial sales and procedures. Garcia explained a delete-all amendment that would create clearer statewide procedures for alternative judicial sales, increase transparency, remove bidding credits, extend sale timelines, and add oversight for auctioneers and escrow agents to prevent fraud and collusion. After no questions or opposition, the amendment was adopted, Senator Pasadoma said the rewrite addressed many of his concerns, and the committee then voted CS for SB 48 favorably with unanimous yes votes from members present. The committee then received a presentation from the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office on the effectiveness of Florida’s recent anti-squatting law, House Bill 621/SB 888. Presenters described several cases in which deputies used the new process to remove unlawful occupants, including a false landlord report, a long-term fake lease situation, and a more recent unlawful occupancy case. They said the law has helped protect property owners and potential victims, but suggested technical changes: clearer authorization for deputies to enter and use force if needed, and a fix to the affidavit penalty provision because false statements are currently being charged as false reports rather than perjury under the existing wording. The Florida Bar also presented on its role in regulating lawyers, lawyer advertising, and the unlicensed practice of law. Bar leaders explained that the Bar operates under the Florida Supreme Court’s authority, is funded by member fees, and handles complaints through a multi-step process involving intake, branch offices, grievance committees, referees, and final Supreme Court review. They described advertising review procedures, discipline statistics, consumer assistance, the Clients’ Security Fund, and enforcement against unlicensed practice. Senators asked about the Legislature’s authority over lawyer advertising, the prevalence of legal ads, the role of public members on grievance committees, and how those members are selected and used.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, welcome and review agenda. Five minutes. So I think we have a new member.
• </c><00:09:16.480><c> uh</c> Yeah, Austin, can you want to review uh Yeah, Austin, can you want to review
• So, uh is to review and discuss item.
• </c><01:09:12.560><c> rates</c> negotiate rates, but we do review rates negotiate rates, but we do review
• </c><01:09:45.279><c> rates</c> negotiate rates we are reviewing rates negotiate rates we are reviewing

Transcript Highlights:

• They have to review everything.
• </c> takes a few hours for each one to review takes a few hours for each one to review and<00:48:59.920
• </c> assessor they have to review assessor they have to review everything<00:49:04.760><c> sometimes<
• We would like to see this proposed Senate Bill move to the Building Code Review Board for their review
• </c><02:05:58.360><c> is</c> review this formal review typically is review this formal review typically

Committee: Senate Commerce

Transcript Highlights:

• reviewing the accuracy and completeness of the authority's draft business plan.
• We also plan to complete our review of the authority's construction quality program, review how compliance
• . ...with environmental requirements is affecting the project and review the authority's change order
• However, my office has been slowed in its efforts to complete these reviews by a lack of access to job
• Currently, timelines are calculated in calendar days, while the actual work of reviewing, redacting,

Committee: House Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• So this was brought to the State Board's review cycle this year because of the zero-based regulation
• review cycle executive order 2021.
• It requires the State Board to review the rules to see if there's any unused, duplicative, or unnecessary
• It requires the State Board to review the rules to see if there's any unused, duplicative, or unnecessary
• And so we couldn't review this and revise this in the same update.

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• Negative declarations provide some review, maybe 20 days, but exemptions cut the public out of the review
• We want to review them.
• This review can often be very quick.
• This review can often be very quick.
• We do need to review the amendments.

Summary: The committee heard a long series of bills, beginning with AB 2026 on groundwater recharge. The author and supporters said the bill would streamline permitting for recharge projects, codify long-standing CEQA exemptions for flood diversions to recharge, and add tribal consultation and other guardrails. Water agencies and local districts supported the measure as a way to capture high-flow water and reduce groundwater subsidence, while environmental groups and some irrigation districts opposed it, warning that the bill’s exemptions and broader diversion authority could harm rivers, Delta resources, and public trust values. The bill was discussed but not voted on because the committee lacked a quorum at that point. The committee then took up AB 1577 on data center energy accountability, which would require monthly reporting of energy-use data and permit-related estimates of energy and water demand. The author and the Little Hoover Commission argued the bill would improve transparency, help protect ratepayers, and give regulators better information for grid planning. Data center industry representatives opposed it as duplicative, burdensome, and uniquely targeted, while local governments, environmental groups, and some utilities supported it or supported it if amended. The bill was later reported out with a due pass recommendation once a quorum was established. Members also heard AB 2245 on a producer responsibility program for lubricant products and containers, AB 2170 on CEQA language-access and environmental review protections for overburdened communities, AB 2059 on rural transportation and VMT mitigation, AB 1808 on Western Joshua tree permitting and fee relief, AB 2182 on industrial energy efficiency program changes, and AB 2231 on streamlining two hospital projects. Testimony was mixed on most of these bills: supporters emphasized affordability, local control, environmental justice, or project urgency, while opponents raised concerns about CEQA scope, regulatory duplication, costs, and environmental impacts. Several measures received due pass recommendations and roll-call votes, including AB 2170, AB 2059, AB 1808, AB 2182, and AB 2231, with some members voting no or not voting and some bills left open for absent members.

Transcript Highlights:

• on the financial plan versus what was actually approved in the motions for these items as I was reviewing
• Both are finished with the schematic design phase and pending a PSFA review meeting of their progress
• The district has also indicated that they would seek a local match reduction for Crown review meeting
• KSFA staff completed 62 plan reviews and plan review updates to the facility assessment database.
• FMP vendors themselves provided updates for seven KSFA staff completed 62 plan reviews and plan review

Committee: House Public School Capital Outlay Oversight Task Force

Transcript Highlights:

• The MCOs then review the prior authorization of the treating provider to determine medical necessity
• They then determine the necessary number of nursing hours based on medical necessity review.
• DSHS assesses eligibility and clinical need through medical necessity review.
• number of units is approved based upon what the utilization contractor has done in their clinical review
• The utilization contractor has done in their clinical review.

Summary: The House Health Care and Wellness Committee met at policy cutoff and first took up executive session on four bills. It considered a proposed substitute for HB 1589 on health carrier contracting practices, which would require carriers to provide providers advance notice and clean copies of contract changes and payment methodologies, and would also add notice requirements for significant payer contract modifications. The committee also considered HB 2402 on phthalates in IV solution containers and tubing, with a substitute delaying implementation dates and creating shortage and FDA-related exemptions. HB 2555, concerning Medicaid coverage of traditional health care practices, and HB 2685, concerning tribal data and disease reporting to tribal health jurisdictions, were also before the committee. HB 2599 was deferred. The committee reported HB 1589, HB 2402, HB 2555, and HB 2685 out of committee with do pass recommendations, with recorded votes showing some members voting no or no without recommendation on the more contested bills. The committee then held a work session on private duty nursing in the Medically Intensive Children’s Program. Health Care Authority and DSHS staff described how the program serves children with complex medical needs through managed care and fee-for-service pathways, the role of prior authorization and medical necessity review, and the ongoing shortage of nursing staff. They said many approved hours are not filled, especially in rural areas, and that family members often provide unpaid care to fill gaps. Committee members asked about the structure of the children’s and adult PDN programs and about how many authorized hours are actually being served. The committee also heard testimony from a home care agency representative and a parent caregiver, both of whom described severe staffing shortages and the burden on families when nursing shifts go unfilled. They supported models that would allow trusted family caregivers to be paid for some of the skilled care they already provide. The committee then heard examples from Montana and Massachusetts of similar family caregiver or complex care assistant programs. Montana described its pediatric complex care assistant model as a gap-filling service with prior authorization and a set hourly rate, while Massachusetts outlined its complex care assistant program, including training, supervision, wage pass-through requirements, and early growth in participation. The meeting concluded after the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• Some of it is in some places intentional delay or multiple reviewers on the same project.
• We also have now after last session, a third-party review.
• If some of those deadlines are missed, then cities, the applicant can go to a third-party review.
• session that we worked on to help streamline the process to allow cities to go to administrative review
• Our goal is to work with the legislature to establish acceptable baseline standards in terms of review

Committee: House Land & Resource Management

Transcript Highlights:

• The trade-off is if you meet high standards, you get a level of certainty in review that cuts down on
• The trade-off is if you meet high standards, you get a level of certainty in review that cuts down on
• The trade-off is if you meet high standards, you get a level of certainty in review that cuts down on
• The trade-off is if you meet high standards, you get a level of certainty in review that cuts down on
• And just an initial review of what's in those amendments, it appears there's discrepancy between what

Summary: The committee heard SB 872, which would direct $150 million annually each for Central Valley subsidence repairs and Delta levee work. Senator McNerney and supporters from Restore the Delta, the State Water Contractors, and many water agencies, labor groups, environmental organizations, and local governments argued the bill is urgent to protect water delivery for 27 million Californians, safeguard levees and state assets, and address climate-related flood risks. There was no opposition testimony, and members asked about the bill’s focus on state-owned conveyance; the author said the distinction reflects the separate state and federal water projects. The bill was held while the committee lacked a quorum, with no vote taken at that point. The committee then heard SB 981, which would require CARB to include cost-of-living impacts in its existing regulatory analysis for major rules. Senator Niello and supporters from agriculture, manufacturing, business, propane, restaurants, and commercial property groups said the bill would improve transparency about how regulations affect gasoline, electricity, food, housing, and business costs. Opponents, including Coalition for Clean Air and the Union of Concerned Scientists, argued it would add delay, cost, and redundant analysis to CARB rulemaking and could not reliably measure the effects the bill seeks to capture. Committee members raised concerns that CARB already estimates costs, that the bill is burdensome and narrow, and that it does not fully account for benefits or the role of other agencies. No vote was recorded in the transcript. SB 887, by Senator Padilla, would require data center projects to undergo CEQA review while creating a streamlined path for projects meeting strong environmental, labor, and community-benefit criteria, including zero-carbon electricity, on-site storage, recycled water or water-efficient cooling, and full cost responsibility for grid upgrades. Supporters said data centers are rapidly expanding, can strain energy and water resources, and should be held to clear standards while still allowing beneficial development; labor and environmental groups backed the measure. Opponents from the Data Center Coalition, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, and business groups said the bill is overly prescriptive, discriminatory toward one industry, and could drive investment and jobs out of state. After discussion, the committee established a quorum and voted 3-1 to pass SB 887 as amended to the Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee, with the bill kept on call. The committee also heard SB 1008, which would renew a CEQA exemption for the closure of at-grade rail crossings ordered by the California Public Utilities Commission. Senator Ochoa Bogh and Union Pacific testified that the measure would help the state act quickly on rail safety by removing redundant environmental review for crossing closures, while still requiring collaboration with local jurisdictions and the PUC. There was support from railroad and business representatives and no opposition. The committee voted 4-0 to pass SB 1008 to the Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee, and the bill was kept on call.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:13:13.279><c> those</c> of time between reviewing those of time between reviewing those applications
• </c> reviewed and sent to the department? reviewed and sent to the department?
• </c><00:18:37.520><c> the</c> applicant. before they review the applicant. before they review the applicants
• </c> without having each department review without having each department review MQ.<00:27:04.720><c>
• </c><01:57:10.560><c> these</c> just constantly review these just constantly review these applications

Summary: The House Committee on Labor held an informational briefing on August 22, 2025, to receive an update from DEH on statewide recruitment efforts aimed at reducing vacancies across state departments. Director Hashimoto, joined by DEH staff, presented on two hiring initiatives: Wikiwiki Hire and Operation Hire Hawaii. The committee focused on how each program works, how quickly applications are screened and referred, and how the programs differ from standard recruitment procedures. For Wikiwiki Hire, DEH described it as an accelerated recruitment pathway used mainly for classes with multiple vacancies. DEH screens applications every two weeks, then sends qualified applicants a list of participating departments and recruiter contact information so applicants and departments can connect directly. Committee members asked about effectiveness data, timelines, and whether the process aligns with the merit principle. DEH said the program is intended to speed hiring, that departments are not required to interview every person on a list, and that applicants can be hired as vacancies are filled on a first-come, first-served basis so long as all qualified applicants have the same opportunity. DEH also said it could provide data later and that it is working through a backlog of screenings. The committee then discussed Operation Hire Hawaii, an executive-order-based hiring effort launched in February to expedite hiring, including for displaced federal workers but open to all applicants. DEH reported more than 6,000 applications, 127 recruitments, 81 closed recruitments, and 142 hires, with a goal of conditional offers within two weeks. DEH said it turns applications around daily, while departments do the initial screening, interviews, and hiring decisions, with DEH completing final qualification screening and suitability checks at the end. Members asked about the program’s duration, its low conversion rate, and what happens to applicants who are not hired; DEH said it can refer qualified applicants to other vacancies and that the pilot was originally intended to run about a year, with possible extension if departments want it to continue.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hear State Auditor's Office Performance Audits, the subcommittee of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review
• The office operates independently of the legislature and of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee
• The office operates independently of the legislature and of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee
• Under the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee, you can also sign up for today's testimony.
• The Commission did not require or review compliance with the 40-hour training, even though state law

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee subcommittee heard three State Auditor’s Office performance audits: implementation of the Law Enforcement Training and Community Safety Act, Washington’s digital equity planning, and the Department of Commerce’s Digital Navigator Program. In the law enforcement training audit, the State Auditor found the Criminal Justice Training Commission had developed most required training content but had not developed all required topics, lacked a systematic project management approach, and had weak tools to ensure participation and compliance. Auditors said most officers had not completed the required 40 hours, patrol tactics training was a major bottleneck, and the Commission’s reporting did not clearly show statewide compliance. The Commission said it generally agreed with the recommendations and had begun implementing some changes. Committee members raised concerns about staffing, liability, incentives, and whether the law had enough enforcement “teeth.” In the digital equity audit, auditors said Washington lacked a comprehensive, unified statewide plan, a designated leader, and reliable funding for digital equity efforts. They said existing plans were fragmented, with the NTIA-approved plan the most complete but no longer fully funded after federal changes. The State Auditor recommended the legislature establish oversight authority and require a lead organization to coordinate and evaluate statewide digital equity efforts and develop a unified plan. The Department of Commerce and Office of Equity agreed with the need for clearer leadership and coordination, and a public witness described ongoing coalition and local planning work. Committee members asked about best practices from other states and whether the auditor could provide additional research on coordination models. In the Digital Navigator Program audit, the State Auditor concluded Commerce did not consistently follow core grant-management practices, including competitive award processes, vetting of grantees, clear contracts, performance monitoring, and reimbursement controls. Auditors said Commerce expanded grants without a new competition, lacked adequate documentation and reporting, and paid out millions without sufficient support; they also cited management decisions that overrode staff concerns. Commerce said it had already begun major contract-management reforms, created a new contracts and compliance structure, and was working on risk assessments, documentation standards, and staff training. Members pressed Commerce on accountability, possible recoupment of improper payments, ethics issues, and whether the agency had clear performance metrics for the program. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended after public testimony and committee discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to this morning's Sunset Review Oversight Hearing, which is being held jointly by the Assembly
• Welcome to this morning's Sunset Review Oversight Hearing, which is being held jointly by the Assembly
• It's a pleasure to be joining my colleagues for this joint Sunset Review hearing.
• Since its last sunset review, Since its last sunset review, the Bureau has reduced expenditures, eliminated
• And so we never have a sunset review about the community colleges.

Transcript Highlights:

• And, you know, the point-in-time review of those financials...
• And, you know, the point in time review of those financials, ...and how they're doing.
• Taking a quick step back, I wanted to review the problem that we're trying to solve.
• Based on our review of the reports, here are some ideas we want to put out for consideration.
• This sets up a review process.

Summary: The committee first received a Commerce overview of capital budget grant programs, including behavioral health facilities, Building for the Arts, Building Communities Fund, early learning facilities, library capital improvements, and youth recreational facilities. Commerce described program eligibility, match requirements, funding cycles, and project examples such as an early learning center in Spokane, a rural library in Stevens County, and a youth clubhouse in Prosser. Members asked about behavioral health capital projects, including how many facilities have been opened and how capital planning aligns with operating funding; Commerce said it could provide more data later and noted it focuses on capital while HCA, DSHS, and DOH handle operating requests. Members also raised concerns about nonprofit financial stability, project licensure, siting, and the burden of non-state match, while Commerce emphasized shovel-ready projects, community match, and efforts to reduce application burden. The committee then heard an update on the Clean Buildings Performance Standard from Commerce. Staff reviewed Washington’s building emissions laws, compliance tiers, exemptions, incentives, and district energy system decarbonization planning under House Bills 1543, 1976, and 1390. Commerce reported nearly 5,000 inquiries in 2025, a fellowship program that has helped more than 250 buildings in 16 counties, and review of nearly 30 district energy plans. The presentation highlighted that over half of Tier 1 buildings are already meeting targets, that Tier 2 incentive applications suggest the 30-cent-per-square-foot incentive often covers compliance costs, and that district decarbonization plans face common challenges such as aging infrastructure, grid readiness, workforce, and inconsistent cost reporting. Members asked what additional legislative action might help, and Commerce said it was still learning from the new rulemaking and implementation changes. Western Washington University and Corex then presented on WWU’s campus heating conversion project and a possible off-campus thermal energy partnership with the Port of Bellingham. WWU described its aging steam system, high emissions, maintenance costs, and the $51 million in Climate Commitment Account funding it has received to transition toward an electric hot-water system using technologies such as geo-exchange, heat recovery chillers, and air-source heat pumps. Corex explained its existing district energy system at the Port of Bellingham, which uses industrial waste heat and is operating at very high efficiency, and said it is exploring a heat transmission line to WWU and possibly sewer-heat recovery. Testimony from WSU and UW supported the broader decarbonization effort but raised concerns about the scale of costs, deferred maintenance, and the need for predictable state funding. A contractor witness urged the state to think bigger about public-private partnerships and other financing tools rather than forcing campuses to compete for limited funds. The committee then held a public hearing on House Bill 2330, which would create a prioritization process for capital funding for state campus district energy system decarbonization projects. Staff said the bill would establish a Commerce committee to score and rank projects, issue a preliminary framework report by December 30 of this year, and provide biennial recommended project lists beginning in 2028, while also studying barriers to energy-as-a-service contracts and public-private partnerships. The prime sponsor said the bill is intended to create a thoughtful, predictable process for deciding which projects to fund, emphasizing energy savings, emissions reductions, operating cost reductions, shovel-readiness, and the value of public-private partnerships. Testimony was mixed but generally supportive: WSU and UW backed the bill as a way to advance compliance and predictability, though WSU warned that compliance costs could be very large and that the university would likely seek state help if fines were imposed. A contractor witness supported the concept but argued the bill should help build a larger funding “pie” through partnerships and financing tools rather than simply dividing scarce resources. The committee then opened and heard testimony on House Bill 2338, which would authorize community-scaled weatherization projects. Commerce staff said the bill would allow weatherization funds and matching funds to be used for neighborhood-scale projects affecting multiple dwelling units, while still prioritizing low-income households; the fiscal note estimated about $273,000 in FY 2027 and about $237,000 per biennium ongoing for administration. Supporters from community action agencies and Spark Northwest said the bill would improve health, safety, affordability, and contractor participation by allowing weatherization to be done at a community scale, especially in mobile home parks and low-income neighborhoods. No votes were taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Second, we recommend routine data collection and equity review so institutions can identify patterns
• This rate, my professor review, has seven down votes, demonstrating that other students disagree and
• sunset reviews.
• sunset reviews.
• There's a system-wide work group that has created a common review is complete.

Summary: The Senate Higher Education and Workforce Development Committee began with a work session on student complaints in higher education. Faculty, union, and research witnesses argued that current complaint systems are sometimes misused in bad faith, disproportionately affecting faculty of color, women, and contingent faculty, consuming institutional resources, and chilling academic freedom. They called for an initial screening process for bias or retaliation, routine data collection and equity review, and a faculty bill of rights. Committee members asked about FERPA, Title IX, and how complaint data could be tracked consistently across institutions. The committee then held public hearings on several bills. SB 6090 would create a Heritage Orchard Program at Washington State University to register and preserve heritage orchards and rare apple varieties; Senator Braun said it would honor Washington’s apple history and support research at low cost. SB 5931 would make technical changes to the Workforce Education Investment Oversight Board, including two-year co-chair terms, a later annual report date, and removal of a dashboard requirement; WASAC, labor, and Microsoft testified in support. SB 5963 would automatically qualify Passport to Careers students as income-eligible for the Washington College Grant and align financial aid definitions; WASAC, College Success Foundation, students, and student advocates supported it as a way to reduce barriers for foster and homeless youth. The committee also heard SB 5978, which would codify and expand the Washington Guaranteed Admissions Program and require annual student notifications about admissions, financial aid, dual credit, and related opportunities. Supporters included the Council of Presidents, faculty, students, parents, and the Washington Roundtable, who said guaranteed admission and better outreach would reduce anxiety, improve transparency, and help more students enroll. Finally, SB 6082 would direct JLARC to audit fraud in state financial aid programs, including fictitious students and AI-enabled abuse; the sponsor cited recent fraud concerns, while community and technical college officials said colleges already have fraud controls in place, warned the audit was unfunded and potentially duplicative, and asked for more resources. No votes were taken, and the committee adjourned after closing the hearings.