Transcript Highlights:

• I know this is a big topic of conversation. This is missing youth.
• She said it was a process they used to place kids.
• How do we support them in the process of removal?
• It would bring a real-life experience reality to that process.
• Normal conversation with the child is forbidden.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee met for a presentation-only hearing on the Arizona Department of Child Safety, with no bills on the agenda. Chair Blackman opened by emphasizing that the hearing was intended to be data-focused and respectful, and that personal attacks or false accusations would not be tolerated. Director Catherine Patak then presented DCS data on hotline volume, investigations, reunifications, adoptions, guardianships, foster care entries and exits, kinship placement, congregate care, missing youth, and extended foster care. She said the department investigated more than 43,000 cases in 2025, kept the out-of-home care population relatively steady, and had reunified about 3,000 children with parents, while also noting that older youth and behavioral-health-driven removals are creating a mismatch with available foster homes. She also described kinship supports, foster parent recruitment, and the impact of Family First on funding, saying DCS lost federal drawdown for congregate care while waiting on approval for prevention programs. Members questioned the director about kinship caregivers, behavioral health access, reunification services, parental rights terminations, notice and documentation practices, and the effect of increased reimbursement rates. Patak said unlicensed kin can receive support through the kinship supports contract, that behavioral health assessments are done quickly at the welcome center or within 24 hours for kin placements, and that provider capacity remains a major constraint outside DCS control. She explained reunification conditions and services, said the department is working on documentation and notice issues flagged by the Auditor General, and noted that kinship reimbursement increases have helped some families step forward. She also said DCS procurement for group homes is handled internally through an RFP process and that about 10% of kinship caregivers become licensed. Representative Gillette then delivered a lengthy presentation arguing that the child welfare, Medicaid, and disability systems are structurally intertwined and that procurement and funding rules create incentives for volume and congregate care use. He criticized DCS, DES, and AHCCCS/Access oversight structures, argued that the system diffuses accountability, and said the committee’s work and related materials would be referred to special counsel. He also raised concerns about documentation, placement decisions, and the cost of congregate care, while asserting that the system over-relies on large providers and that reforms should focus on structural and financial incentives. Vice Chair Fink followed with a brief slide noting that congregate care costs far more per child than foster or kinship care, reinforcing the committee’s concern about placement costs and the need to shift children toward family-based care when possible.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a very organized process.
• The citizens' initiative, the citizen-led amendment process, is already one of the toughest processes
• The Citizens' initiative, the citizen-led amendment process, already one of the toughest processes to
• The initial process is not the same as a voter registration process, and we recommend you extend that
• The initial process is not the same as a better registration process, and we recommend you extend that

Summary: The Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections heard SPB 7016, a bill revising Florida’s citizen initiative petition process to address fraud, voter information, and ballot integrity. The bill and its amendments would add sponsor bonds and deposit requirements, require more identifying information from signers and circulators, bar certain felons and non-citizens from circulating petitions, require circulator training, shorten the time to submit signed petitions, require notices to voters whose signatures are verified, and change how financial impact statements are handled. Several amendments were adopted, including a $1 million bond framework, 10-point font and page limits for petition forms, a ban on incentive-based pay tied to petition counts or speed, removal of a requirement that fraud be proven by criminal conviction before administrative fines, county deposit and payment procedures for supervisors of elections, invalidation of petitions gathered by ineligible circulators, training requirements within 30 days, and a prohibition on public funds being used to advocate for or against constitutional amendments. Committee discussion focused heavily on implementation and fairness. Supporters, including the sponsor and the Florida Chamber of Commerce, argued the bill was needed to deter fraud, protect voter information, and ensure sponsors—not taxpayers—bear the costs of the initiative process. Supervisors of elections testified that county taxpayers should not subsidize petition verification, but also warned that some provisions would be difficult to implement quickly because of software and operational constraints. Senators raised questions about the bond cost, the 10-day submission deadline, notice to voters whose petitions are invalidated, the effect on returning citizens, and whether the bill could disenfranchise voters who sign petitions in good faith. Public testimony was overwhelmingly opposed. Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, NAACP Florida, Florida Rising, Equality Florida, All Voting Is Local, and other advocates said the bill would suppress grassroots participation, criminalize volunteers, create costly barriers, and favor wealthy or corporate interests. They objected especially to the bond, the new signer identification requirements, the shorter submission window, and the lack of notice when a petition is invalidated. A few supporters, including the Florida Chamber, backed the measure as a safeguard against fraud and outside influence. After debate, the committee did not reach a final vote on the bill in the portion provided, but the bill remained before the committee as amended.

Transcript Highlights:

• When we only have 30 to process, that's going to be quicker than when we have 300 to process.
• When we only have 30 to process, that's going to be quicker than when we have 300 to process.
• When we only have 30 to process, that's going to be quicker than when we have 300 to process.
• When we only have 30 to process, that's going to be quicker than when we have 300 to process.
• you know, our process. you know, our process. Thank<00:21:21.600> you.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:04:04.720> in<01:04:04.839> it process because the grant process in it process
• This is a process.
• A health care directive is a process that is signed outside of any court process.
• This conversation I've been a part of for a number of years, and the way the conversation ordinarily
• This conversation I've been a part of for a number of years, and the way the conversation ordinarily

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The $100,000 threshold is an amount that was agreed to by DOE in previous conversations. Thank you.
• <00:04:27.400> thank<00:04:27.600> you previous conversations thank you previous conversations
• It's just sounds like you're just trying to go around procurement, and there's no thought process on
• It's just sounds like you're just trying to go around procurement, and there's no thought process on
• dietary components okay so what process dietary components okay so what process are<00:16:16.839

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 110, HD1, which would clarify local food purchase goals for the Department of Education. DOE said it supports the measure and will work toward the 30% local food mandate by 2030. The Department of Agriculture also supported the bill, and outside advocates from the Hawaii Public Health Institute and Hawaii Farm to School Network strongly backed it as consistent with prior farm-to-school laws and helpful for measuring progress toward the goal. The committee then took up House Bill 293, which would exempt certain DOE purchases of local edible produce and packaged food products from electronic procurement rules and allow written-quote purchasing thresholds, including a lower quote requirement for some rural schools. DOE, the Department of Agriculture, the State Procurement Office, and the Hawaii Farm Bureau all supported the measure, describing it as a tool to help the department test and add local products and meet the 30% goal. However, members pressed DOE on the bill’s purpose and mechanics, questioning why the department could not simply add products to vendor lists or use existing procurement flexibility. DOE explained it was trying to test new local products, including products not yet on the USDA-approved list, and said the bill would allow limited pilot purchases while it works through USDA approval and vendor-list updates. Members also raised concerns about whether the bill was being used to bypass procurement and whether small farmers or aggregators could realistically supply the needed volume. House Bill 1069, which would add two voting members representing DOE and the Board of Education to the School Facilities Authority, also drew support from DOE and the Board of Education. Supporters said the change would improve accountability, strategic input, and communication on school facilities matters. SFA testified that it has already increased coordination with DOE through regular meetings and that recent discussions have been more robust. Committee members questioned whether voting seats were necessary given that DOE and BOE could already attend meetings and receive updates, and they raised concerns about how a voting representative would report back and whether the measure would actually solve communication problems. No votes or final actions were taken on the measures during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• process and a respect for one another. process and a respect for one another.
• :01:56.720> that<00:01:56.960> were conversations about issues that were conversations
• There's a lot of the big conversations.
• is only part of the process.
• <00:30:40.320> time governor conversations ahead of time governor conversations ahead of time

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um I appreciate the many conversations Um I appreciate the many conversations we<00:23:59.840>
• I'm willing to do that and appreciate the conversation around that.
• Senator Liski, into those conversations.
• Uh so members uh I um of a conversation.
• Um, and uh, the uh later in the process.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This measure reflects conversations started.
• There’s been a lot of conversation around our balance sheet and all of that.
• There’s been a lot of conversation around our balance sheet and all of that.
• Chairman, for facilitating these conversations, for helping to inform this proposal.
• These conversations for helping to inform this proposal.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight heard ACA 20, the Safe for California Futures Act, a constitutional amendment to strengthen the state’s Budget Stabilization Account (rainy day fund). The authors, Assembly Members Gabriel and Valencia, said the measure would raise the reserve cap from 10% to 20% of General Fund revenues, change how reserve deposits are treated under the Gann limit so deposits would not count against the spending cap until withdrawn, and update eligible debt repayments to include items such as budget loans, Proposition 98 settle-up obligations, and unemployment insurance debt. They emphasized that the proposal was intended to protect schools and core public services and to help California better withstand revenue volatility and future downturns. Committee discussion focused heavily on the technical effects of the measure, especially its interaction with Proposition 98 and the Gann limit. LAO and Department of Finance staff explained that Prop. 98 funding would not be changed directly, that the reserve deposits would be treated as exclusions from the appropriations limit, and that withdrawals would count when spent. Members asked about current reserve levels, mandatory deposits, and whether the measure would create more room for discretionary spending; supporters argued it would simply allow the state to save more in good years, while one member expressed concern that it could function as a slush fund and expand spending opportunities. Several members cited recent budget volatility, record revenues, and the need for stronger reserves, while others stressed that the measure should be understood as a future-oriented savings reform rather than a response to this year’s budget choices. Public testimony was uniformly supportive. California Forward, Elevate California, and the California Chamber of Commerce all backed the proposal, with the Chamber noting support for the policy and highlighting the importance of addressing unemployment insurance debt for small businesses. The chair concluded by thanking the authors, staff, and witnesses, and said ACA 20 was expected to move to the Assembly floor the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we are in the process right now of a couple things.
• So I look forward to continuing that conversation and that work.
• But, like you said, the department underwent a process called service-based budgeting.
• Jacobs here and just ask folks to take conversations outside, please.
• And just ask folks to take conversations outside, please.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I appreciate you sort of dipping your toe in the water to get the process started.
• What’s the accountability process in delivering this alcohol?
• What’s the accountability process in delivering this alcohol?
• What’s the accountability process in delivering this alcohol?
• <00:27:16.559> in is what's the accountability process in is what's the accountability process

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But working with Minut State, when I, when I, when I, through that process of Title IX.
• And when you reached out to other institutions and I was having conversations with Williston, lots of
• When I was going through the interview process... ...values, mission, and vision.
• Hopefully there's other opportunities where they could look at another application process.
• Hopefully there's other opportunities where they could look at another application process.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think process matters.
• So it's a two-stage process.
• So it's a two-stage process.
• Um, and so I'm conversation here.
• to have a little more conversation. Mr. to have a little more conversation. Mr.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• My most recent conversation with them was just a couple of months ago, in fact.
• That also will come through the sunset process.
• Dallas actually changed their processes. They fundamentally changed.
• The next slide is the process.
• So in this whole process of review, does the victim or the community have a say in this process?

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's in process right now.
• So we've got to rebuild all that, and that's what we're in the process of. Yeah.
• We do more work around enrichment and some of the conversion, deconversion processes.
• Wherever that enrichment facility, the conversion facilities, recycling facilities, associated power
• The manufacturing process might also standardize a regulatory process.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The typical process for developing the recommendations comes from a multi-stage competitive process.
• The typical process for developing the recommendations comes from a multi-stage competitive process.
• The typical process for developing the recommendations comes from a multi-stage competitive process.
• The typical process for developing the recommendations comes from a multi-stage competitive process.
• process.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm not creating a new process, right? It just says that this is now subject to that process.
• I'm not creating a new process, right? It just says that this is now subject to that process.
• I'm not creating a new process, right? It just says that this is now subject to that process.
• I'm not creating a new process, right? It just says that this is now subject to that process.
• uncomfortable conversation, so be it. uncomfortable conversation, so be it.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 34, which would require parental consent for each new service provided to a student through the Medicaid to Schools program and require reports to legislative policy committees. Senator Ruth Ward said the bill was intended to increase transparency, protect parental involvement, and ensure continuity of care, especially for students with disabilities. She also noted a proposed amendment she received shortly before the hearing that would change the bill’s focus from a “new service” to a “new care plan.” Representatives from the New Hampshire Primary Care Association and Amoscake Health testified that they opposed the bill as written but would support it with the amendment. They explained that tying consent to individual diagnosis codes or services could be burdensome, could delay care, and could create compliance problems if a diagnosis changes during a visit. They said the amendment would better align consent with the overall care plan and avoid interrupting treatment mid-appointment. Committee members raised questions about how the bill would interact with IEPs, individualized health plans, homebound services, telehealth, billing, and whether the amendment would still require parental involvement after a care plan changes. The deputy Medicaid director from the Department of Health and Human Services testified that the amendment was more operationally feasible because Medicaid billing involves many ICD-10 codes that can change or overlap, and consent should be tied to the care plan rather than to each code. He said the current law already requires parental consent for participation in the Medicaid to Schools program and annual consent for billing, but the bill would make explicit consent for care-plan changes. No vote was taken during the portion of the hearing provided, and the committee appeared to continue discussion with DHHS after the testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• That is why we've gone to videophone processes across...
• That is why we've gone to videophone processes across the state 25 years ago.
• That is why we've gone to video phone processes across the state 25 years ago.
• I want to thank ODS and DOJ for the great conversations about these issues.
• So, you know, we do have an amenability process. We have a reverse amenability process.

Bills: HB372, HB414

Keywords: HB372, Justice of the Peace Court, Delaware courts, Title 10, court administration, judicial staffing, county courts, Kent County, New Castle County, Sussex County, Wilmington, 24-hour hearings, court locations, court hours, magistrate court, access to justice, court consolidation, Delaware General Assembly, destructive weapon, possessing a destructive weapon

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee met and heard three bills. HB 372 would reorganize Justice of the Peace Court resources by shifting the number of judges and court locations among counties, consolidating overnight operations into a single 24-hour court in Kent County, and adjusting staffing to address workload and efficiency concerns. Chief Judge Alan Davis said the change responds to increased civil filings, automated enforcement, and staffing shortages, and that a Sussex County pilot closing a 24-hour facility had worked without major issues. Some members raised concerns about impacts on Sussex and Kent County, bail processing, and local response times, while public comment included one supporter. The committee voted to release HB 372. The committee then considered SB 324, which amends Delaware’s permit-to-purchase law to allow constable agencies, including those serving institutions like Delaware Tech, to purchase handguns for newly hired constables without duplicative background checks. Sponsor Representative Cook said the bill aligns constable procurement with existing law-enforcement exemptions while preserving gun-safety requirements. Public testimony included support from Delaware Tech and comments urging broader fixes to the permit-to-purchase law, including exemptions for retired officers with federal 218 credentials and clarification on firearms returned from manufacturers, gunsmiths, or police departments. The committee voted to release SB 324. Finally, the committee heard HB 414, which clarifies that the Superior Court’s exclusive jurisdiction over certain destructive-weapon offenses applies only to adults, while juvenile cases would still begin in Family Court. Sponsor Representative Romer said the bill preserves the Family Court’s role in handling youth cases and allows referral to Superior Court when appropriate. The Department of Justice said it still believes Superior Court is the proper venue for these serious charges, while the Office of Defense Services supported keeping youth cases in Family Court first, arguing that rehabilitation and juvenile-specific dispositions are more appropriate. After public comment, the committee voted to release HB 414, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• No, it's simply a bill to allow people to have due process.
• Is there currently an appeal process that they can avail of?
• Based on this conversation here.
• That's it; that's the process.
• We had a process for just that situation.

Bills: SB801, SB867, SB2717, SB2919, HJR7, HB4, HB14, HB27, HB42, HB46, HB100, HB111, HB112, HB121, HB126, HB146, HB186, HB223, HB229, HB322, HB367, HB500, HB521, HB640, HB705, HB783, HB1052, HB1056, HB1105, HB1106, HB1178, HB1211, HB1234, HB1306, HB1403, HB1449, HB1506, HB1661, HB1690, HB1871, HB1960, HB2017, HB2078, HB2128, HB2240, HB2243, HB2348, HB2407, HB2512, HB2820, HB2844, HB2853, HB2854, HB2885, HB3000, HB3005, HB3053, HB3057, HB3181, HB3333, HB3372, HB3425, HB3441, HB3516, HB3749, HB3783, HB3812, HB3848, HB3923, HB3963, HB4070, HB4134, HB4157, HB4158, HB4211, HB4449, HB4623, HB4638, HB4687, HB4690, HB4748, HB4749, HB4795, HB4848, HB5093, HB5115, HB5129, HB5138, HB5294, HB5616, HB5629, HB5646, HB5661, HB5672, HB5674, HB5699, HCR40, SJR5, SJR27, SJR59, SB4, SB6, SB8, SB9, SB10, SB12, SB22, SB23, SB25, SB27, SB34, SB36, SB37, SB38, SB40, SB57, SB140, SB261, SB293, SB441, SB447, SB467, SB512, SB650, SB777, SB785, SB924, SB1188, SB1281, SB1318, SB1333, SB1398, SB1448, SB1566, SB1579, SB1621, SB1723, SB1838, SB1862, SB2167, SB2405, SB2406, SB2407, SB2878, SB3059, SB3070, SB1, SB17, SB21, SB260, SB379, SB509, SB1198, SB1405, SB1506, SB1637, SB1833, SB2155, SB2308, SB2601, SB2778, HB300, HB2011, HB2525, HB5246, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1234, SB2926, SB2841, SB1528, SB1854, SB317, SB1250, SB2082, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1367, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3036, SB3057, SB3043, SB3063, SB3035, SB203, SB2688, SB2522, SB2459, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB2928, SB2566, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1944, SB1232, SB1798, SB2603, SB2607, SB2683, SB1319, SB3045, SB3071, HJR7, HB5115, HB3053, HB1403, HB223, HB748, HB5652, HB3395, HB180, HB1306, HB322, HB126, HB5650, HB4894, HB1629, HB5698, HB3171, HB2694, HB5664, HB4690, HB4464, HB3623, HB2520, HB2213, HB252, HB146, HB5596, HB3619, HB5320, HB5651, HB5670, HB5665, HB5437, HB5679, HB5699, HB5661, HB5662, HB5654, HB5672, HB5656, HB3812, HB3057, HB2035, HB721, HB346, HB2512, HB5695, HB5694, HB5674, HB3185, HB2348, HB1871, HB1135, HB101, HB5666, HB5677, HB5682, HB5658, HB4144, HB3642, HB3815, HB2686, HB2012, HB1960, HB227, HB654, HB1690, HB2128, HB4158, HB4630, HB1523, HB2078, HB1973, HB3333, HB3697, HB3546, HB3225, HB3181, HB2820, HB1506, HB1234, HB640, HB521, HB229, HB186, HB119, HB4795, HB4466, HB3749, HB1106, HB4, HB4170, HB3909, HB4081, HB4145, HB4157, HB4285, HB4463, HB4995, HB5138, HB5624, HB1449, HB2598, HB3629, HB4361, HB824, HB1868, HB4848, HB2243, HB40, HB117, HB3686, HB500, HB3793, HB112, HB104, HB1056, HB42, HB3000, HB100, HB2240, HB718, HB27, HB4904, HB4202, HB2853, HB5129, HB5093, HB4765, HB4748, HB4559, HB4350, HB4214, HB3388, HB3112, HB5196, HB4211, HB3516, HB3092, HB4233, HB4687, HB705, HB1094, HB2037, HB3005, HB3848, HB1105, HB121, HB3372, HB367, HB783, HB3336, HB3441, HB4449, HB5616, HB2407, HB2854, HB3425, HB5294, HB1178, HB4623, HB14, HB3963, HB1211, HB5646, HB5629, HB3783, HB4236, HB46, HB4638, HB1052, HB4070, HB5509, HB5435, HB4134, HB3923, HB3520, HB3320, HB2517, HB2488, HB5663, HB2731, HB3073, HB2655, HB2399, HB541, HB4099, HB111, HB1532, HB3483, HB2963, HB4580, HB3748, HB713, HB632, HB426, HB4730, HB127, HB5690, HB5689, HB5655, HB3385, HB2757, HB4359, HB5381, HB20, HB123, HB549, HB5606, HB2217, HB2594, HB796, HB150, HB1057, HCR141, HCR40, HCR59, HCR76, HCR81, HCR46, HCR111, HCR83, HCR84, HJR7, HB4, HB14, HB27, HB42, HB46, HB100, HB126, HB150, HB322, HB367, HB500, HB640, HB705, HB783, HB1105, HB1178, HB1211, HB1234, HB1506, HB1690, HB1871, HB2078, HB2128, HB2240, HB2243, HB2407, HB2512, HB2853, HB2854, HB3000, HB3057, HB3181, HB3372, HB3425, HB3441, HB3749, HB3783, HB3812, HB3923, HB3963, HB4070, HB4134, HB4157, HB4211, HB4449, HB4623, HB4638, HB4687, HB4748, HB4795, HB5093, HB5129, HB5616, HB5629, HB5699, HB229, HB521, HB1056, HB1106, HB5138, SR583, SCR52, HB223, HB229, HB521, HB1056, HB1106, HB1403, HB3053, HB5115, HB5138

Keywords: SB 801, birth certificate, birth record, certified copy, homeless, homelessness, unhoused, vital records, state registrar, local registrar, county clerk, fee waiver, identity documents, ID access, housing insecurity, shelter, transitional housing, Health and Safety Code, HHSC, Health and Human Services Commission

Transcript Highlights:

• It was a conversation today.
• or having a conversation with a crisis professional.
• To the conversations as we've tried to build this.
• We are elongating that process a lot.
• That's the thing that we're missing in this process.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so the process can be different for every community.
• So I really appreciate the conversation of you being involved.
• That might want to have conversations with Las Cruces and Dona Ana County as well.
• Also to have more and more conversations about how these things can be used.
• But also that we're bringing in national leaders in this conversation to start that conversation for