Transcript Highlights:

• I am the vice president of AFSCME Washington State Council of County and City Employees and a member
• For background, the state civil service law sets employment rules for most state employees.
• For background, the state civil service law sets employment rules for most state employees.
• I'm here on behalf of the Washington Federation of State Employees in support of House Bill 2249.
• Katie Durkin, here on behalf of the Washington Federation of State Employees in support of House Bill

Summary: The committee first suspended the five-day notice rule and then heard House Bill 2521 on firearm background check fees. Staff explained that the bill would remove the $18 fee cap and allow Washington State Patrol to set fees based on actual program costs, which could be about $33 to $35 per check. Supporters said the change was needed to keep the background check system operating and avoid delays and layoffs; opponents argued it would burden lawful gun owners and amount to an unconstitutional tax or barrier to a constitutional right. No vote was taken in the hearing. Members then heard Substitute House Bill 2475 on language-accessible public programs, which would direct the Office of Equity to develop uniform language-access guidelines, address interpreter and translator shortages, and require agency implementation reporting. Testimony was strongly supportive, emphasizing the need for consistent access for limited-English-proficient residents and the benefits for schools, families, and state services. The committee also heard Second Substitute House Bill 2479 on wage recovery, which would create a wage recovery fund to provide partial advance payments to low-wage workers with meritorious unpaid wage claims and adjust wage penalty provisions. Employers, labor advocates, and legal services representatives largely supported the bill as a bipartisan, worker-protection measure funded by penalties rather than the general fund. The committee next took up Engrossed Third Substitute House Bill 1960 on renewable energy tax incentives, which would replace existing property tax and excise tax provisions with a new state and local renewable energy excise tax structure and related grant programs for local governments and tribes. Counties, utilities, developers, and tribal representatives generally supported the bill’s goal of stabilizing tax treatment for renewable projects, though several witnesses said they wanted amendments to address rates, timing, and late-stage project impacts. The committee also heard Substitute Senate Bill 5932 on alternative jet fuel incentives, which would change the timing and duration of existing tax preferences; supporters said it would provide certainty for emerging sustainable aviation fuel projects, while one refinery sought clarification and a broader county threshold. Later, the committee heard Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2238 on statewide food security, directing the Department of Agriculture to monitor food system performance and develop a statewide food security strategy. Agricultural groups, grocers, anti-hunger advocates, and farmers supported the bill as a coordination effort to improve food access, affordability, and supply chain resilience. The committee then heard Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1903, which would create a statewide low-income energy assistance program through the Department of Commerce; supporters said it would address growing unmet need and complement existing utility programs, while opponents said it did not address the root causes of rising energy costs. Finally, the committee heard Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2416 on waste-to-energy facilities under the Climate Commitment Act and Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2515 on large energy-use facilities (data centers), both of which drew mixed testimony centered on balancing emissions, ratepayer impacts, reliability, and environmental or tribal concerns. No final votes were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• this oral argument before the Washington State Legislative Ethics Board.
• Employees do not have an interest in their employers by virtue of their employment.
• There are many, many legislators who seek money for their employees.
• She's both a board member and an employee of AEJG.
• state legislature, state, I just.

Summary: The Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings held oral argument before the Legislative Ethics Board in the matter of Representative Tara Simmons, docketed as Legislative Ethics Board case 2025-5. The hearing concerned Simmons’ motion for summary judgment in an ethics complaint alleging violations of RCW 42.52.020 (conflicts of interest) and RCW 42.52.070 (special privileges), based on her work involving an EEC proviso, her employment relationship with EEC, a campaign surplus donation connected to AEJG and Jerry Stone, her involvement in an AEJG-EEC subcontract dispute, and related text messages with Anthony Powers. No evidence was taken; the session focused on legal argument over whether the alleged facts, if accepted as true, were sufficient to establish violations as a matter of law. Simmons’ counsel argued the complaint was legally insufficient because the alleged actions benefited her employer or others, not Simmons herself, and that existing board opinions allow legislators to support employers absent a direct personal benefit. He also argued the board was effectively trying to adopt a new bright-line rule prohibiting legislators from funding employers, which he said would be an improper retroactive change. Board staff, through Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisentrout, opposed summary judgment and argued the facts were enough to show Simmons had an indirect financial or other interest in EEC’s funding, that her job duties and legislative actions created conflicts, and that her actions around the donation, subcontract dispute, and text messages could be viewed as using her position to secure special privileges. A board member asked whether the allegations themselves were sufficient and whether the standard required assuming the facts as alleged; staff responded that the motion failed because the record contained sufficient facts to proceed, and that any factual disputes should be resolved at hearing. After rebuttal, the ALJ closed the oral argument and turned the matter over to the Legislative Ethics Board for deliberation. No ruling was issued during the hearing, and the board was to decide whether to grant the summary judgment motion or set the case for an evidentiary hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> reasons one we already allow employees reasons one we already allow employees under<00:08:46.880
• </c> commission as well as uh the ha State commission as well as uh the ha State AFL<00:11:07.480><c>
• </c><00:29:50.519><c> Fire</c> HB 2011 relating to the State Fire HB 2011 relating to the State Fire
• Because the state medical marijuana laws differ, I guess, one from state to state as well as a federal
• > marijuana</c> the state to- State medical marijuana the state to- State medical marijuana laws<00:47

Committee: House Labor

Transcript Highlights:

• state legislatures and enforced by state law.
• , the individual states.
• employees through Section 1983, putting it in state law, and then the qualified immunity can be removed
• This statute applies to every single California public employee, state and local.
• It gets knocked out under sovereign immunity, and then it lands on all of your state and local employees

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> state. We're retiring Shero plants. state. We're retiring Shero plants.
• in the state.
• And a state that works has really become, in my mind, a motto for our state.
• And a state that works has really become, in my mind, a motto for our state.
• A state that works has really become, in my mind, a motto for our state.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we don't know if other states are establishing caps. So the presumption is other states are not.
• in the California State University system.
• Doug Subers, on behalf of the California State University Employees Union, in strong support.
• Doug Subers, on behalf of the California State University Employees Union and Strong Support.
• These employees would be prohibited from receiving raises, even if represented employees receive negotiated

Committee: House Higher Education

Transcript Highlights:

• I sat on a state employees' retirement system board before, with Trey. I think it's well overdue.
• For the last 10 years, it's been 10 years since the COLA has been given to state employees in the State
• I sat on a State Employees' Retirement System board before with Trey. I think it's well overdue.
• Trey Boudreau from the Louisiana State Employees Retirement System.
• He does the other part of the state employees.

Committee: House Retirement

Summary: The Retirement Committee met on March 26, 2026, with a quorum present. House Bill 24 was voluntarily deferred at the start of the meeting. The committee then heard House Bill 20, which would have allowed retired teachers to return to work under superintendent discretion while drawing retirement benefits. Representative Bagley argued the bill would help address teacher shortages by letting districts hire experienced certified teachers, while Representative Taylor raised broader concerns about how returning retirees are treated. After discussion, HB 20 was voluntarily deferred. The committee next considered House Bill 25, a technical update to the Teachers’ Retirement System to conform with changes in the Internal Revenue Code, including benefit commencement and surviving spouse election provisions. Catherine Whitney of TRSL said the bill is routine compliance legislation reviewed periodically by the system’s tax attorney. An amendment was adopted, and HB 25 was reported favorably as amended. House Bill 23, a cost-of-living adjustment bill for LASERS retirees, was also amended to raise the benefit cap from $80,000 to $81,201 and then reported favorably as amended. House Bill 42 proposed a phased retirement program for higher education employees in the Teachers’ Retirement System, allowing partial retirement and part-time work with partial benefits. Bacala said it was intended to help retain talent at universities and was based on prior task force recommendations; an amendment was adopted to set the participation framework for universities, and the bill was reported favorably as amended. House Bill 32, a LASERS cleanup bill addressing disability retiree restoration, administrative errors, and benefit calculations, was described by LASERS as technical in nature and was reported favorably. House Bill 13, a State Police Retirement System reamortization bill, was amended to adjust timing and technical provisions and then reported favorably as amended. Finally, the committee took up House Bill 41 on the Firefighters’ Retirement System board makeup. A new amendment package replaced earlier amendments and would eliminate term limits, expand elected active-member seats from two to five, remove chief association appointments, and require vacancies to be filled by election. Supporters described it as a compromise intended to better represent the system’s active members, while the Louisiana Fire Chiefs Association objected that chiefs had been left out of the negotiations and said they provide important budget and governance expertise. Despite the opposition, the committee adopted the amendments and reported HB 41 favorably as amended.

Transcript Highlights:

• State-only claiming adjustments.
• , because of that, they have to pay $300 per employee per quarter to the state.
• Because of that, they have to pay $300 per employee per quarter to the state?
• Is that the only state in the United States that does something like that?
• We have 136 facilities throughout the state of California, with about 40,000 employees who take care

Summary: The subcommittee heard a lengthy Department of Health Care Services presentation on the governor’s Medi-Cal budget, including a $229.1 billion total-funds proposal, projected Medi-Cal enrollment declines as redeterminations continue, and several major cost drivers such as managed care growth, Medicare-related costs, pharmacy spending, and changes tied to federal policy. Members focused heavily on the elimination of Prop. 56 dental supplemental payments beginning July 1, 2026, questioning the likely impact on provider participation and utilization. DHCS said it is completing the required rate reduction/access analysis for CMS, has been holding stakeholder meetings and issuing provider bulletins, but could not yet quantify the real-world effect. The committee also discussed a $50 million savings proposal tied to new hospice utilization management authority and asked about possible effects on emergency dental care and provider participation. The hearing then moved through the November 2025 family health estimate and several county and program administration issues, including CCS, GHPP, and Every Woman Counts. DHCS said family health costs are rising despite slight caseload declines because of higher utilization and medical costs, and members raised concerns about CCS website accessibility, county administrative funding, and the transition of youth aging out of CCS. The department said most CCS beneficiaries are also on Medi-Cal, that counties have long raised funding concerns, and that it had clarified use of maintenance-and-operations dollars to address some county workload issues. Members also asked about Every Woman Counts potentially seeing higher demand as Medi-Cal changes take effect; DHCS said that is possible and that the program has multiple funding sources including General Fund. A major portion of the hearing focused on provider taxes and federal changes under H.R. 1, especially the Medi-Cal managed care organization tax and the hospital quality assurance fee. DHCS explained that H.R. 1 restricts new or increased health care-related taxes, phases down allowable tax levels over time, and tightens “generally redistributive” rules, which could sharply reduce the state’s ability to use the MCO tax for Medi-Cal financing. Members asked whether the Legislature could amend Prop. 35 or whether voters would need to act; DHCS said a three-fourths legislative amendment may be possible if it aligns with the measure’s purpose, but the department is still evaluating options. The committee also discussed hospital financing, with DHCS describing recent increases in state-directed payments and the effect of H.R. 1 in capping those payments at Medicare levels, and the LAO noting the tradeoff between preserving provider taxes and maintaining Medi-Cal funding. The subcommittee also reviewed a series of DHCS budget change proposals and trailer bill items, including managed care final-rule implementation, managed care operations, a hospital value strategy, a one-year extension of skilled nursing facility financing, long-term care payment transparency, and interoperability/prior authorization requirements. Members repeatedly questioned the use of limited-term versus permanent positions, the overlap among proposals, and the timing of new financing reforms. DHCS said the SNF extension would preserve current workforce standards, sanctions, growth limits, and the SNF quality assurance fee while the department develops a broader 2027-28 redesign. No votes were taken; items were repeatedly held open for later action. Covered California then presented on the expiration of the federal enhanced premium tax credit and the resulting affordability crisis. The agency said Californians will lose about $2.5 billion in premium assistance for 2026, average premiums could nearly double for many enrollees, and as many as 400,000 people could eventually leave marketplace coverage. Open enrollment ended with 1.9 million sign-ups, down 3% from the prior year, with especially steep declines among middle-income consumers and increased movement into bronze plans. Covered California said the state’s $190 million affordability subsidy is helping lower-income enrollees retain coverage, but cannot fully replace the lost federal assistance. Members also asked about the Health Care Affordability Reserve Fund, repayment of loans from that fund, the status of federal review of California’s essential health benefits benchmark, and implementation of the new gender-affirming care benefit under AB 144.

Transcript Highlights:

• If it's the employee Smith. Okay?
• employee or the investigation of charges against him, unless the employee affected has a right to a
• </c> rights that public employees have? rights that public employees have?
• </c> state rep. He comes from West Milan. state rep. He comes from West Milan.
• </c> state level because I do see at a state state level because I do see at a state level<00:58:39.680

Summary: The subcommittee held a work session on HB 313, a bill dealing with non-public sessions and when a person discussed in such a session should be notified or allowed to request that the meeting be open. The chair opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and invited public comment before committee discussion. The main public testimony came from Phil Jaru, who described a personal dispute with local officials and said the bill should ensure people are notified when they are being discussed in closed session and can request an open meeting. He also argued for limits on non-public sessions, saying they should not be used for matters outside the board’s authority or for what he characterized as gossip, while also trying to avoid interfering with investigations. Committee members focused on the practical and legal problems with the proposal. Several members questioned whether a person should have a right to attend, to demand an open meeting, or simply to receive notice, and whether that right should apply before the meeting or only once the discussion begins. Members raised concerns about situations involving multiple people, children, victims, or other confidentiality interests, and whether a request to open the meeting could conflict when one person wants openness and another wants privacy. One member suggested the bill may be too broad and proposed narrowing it to simple advance notification, possibly by email, rather than an automatic right to open the meeting. The discussion also touched on existing law governing non-public sessions, including the narrow “reputation” exception and Supreme Court cases interpreting it. Members noted that the current statute already limits non-public discussion to the matters stated in the motion, and some suggested that if the concern is boards using non-public sessions for unrelated discussion, that issue may be better addressed by clarifying the existing statute rather than expanding the bill. No vote or final action was taken; the committee appeared to continue working through possible amendments and whether the bill should be narrowed to notification or a right to attend rather than a right to force the meeting open.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we do have a number of holidays which are considered observed but are not a day off for state employees
• We need to negotiate when employees get off. necessarily A a holiday that state necessarily A a holiday
• that state employees<00:06:54.919><c> would</c><00:06:55.120><c> not</c><00:06:55.400><c> be</c><00:
• state employees because those day offer state employees because those are<00:07:04.000><c> subject</
• These positions are being established after the tragic incident and loss of life of a state employee

Summary: The joint committees on Labor and Technology, Transportation, and Culture and the Arts heard testimony on Senate Bill 396 and Senate Bill 47, then later the Labor and Technology committee took up Senate Bill 136 and Senate Bill 1523. SB 396 drew support from the Metropolitan Planning Organization and others, with a question raised about implementation costs; the director said costs would depend on the scope of the benefit package and the transportation mode involved. The committees recommended passing SB 396 with technical amendments and added appropriation language with a blank amount, and the motion was adopted by recorded votes in both committees. SB 47, which would designate the Lunar New Year as a state holiday, received support from the Office of Collective Bargaining and several individuals, including Charlene Chun, who spoke about family traditions and cultural recognition. Members asked about the cost and whether the day would be a paid day off for state employees; the response was that observance would be subject to collective bargaining. The committees moved SB 47 forward with amendments, noting the collective bargaining and cost issues, and adopted the recommendation by vote. In the Labor and Technology committee, SB 136 on the Iron Workers Stabilization Fund drew strong support from iron workers and related supporters, who argued the bill was about safety, training, and keeping dismantling work within the ironworkers’ trade. Several other unions, including operating engineers, carpenters, laborers, and plumbers and fitters, opposed the bill as too broad and potentially infringing on their jurisdiction. The measure was not decided in the portion provided, but members discussed possible amendments and jurisdictional concerns. SB 1523, which would expand private-sector collective bargaining rights under the Hawaii Employment Relations Act to include independent contractors and others under NLRB jurisdiction, received broad labor support, including from IATSE, AFL-CIO, Hawaii Nurses Association, Unite Here Local 5, and many individual testifiers. Supporters framed it as protecting workers’ rights and strengthening labor protections, while the Hawaii Labor Relations Board warned it could significantly increase workload and require more staffing, space, and operating resources; the board estimated the bill could expand its caseload substantially and suggested an appropriation would likely be needed. The committee then moved on to the next measure, SB 1440, before the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• employee?
• "Okay, so who—does the state have the land then? No, the state sold it.
• And how much is the state portion of that money? You said there was a state portion?
• There's no state funds here. Okay, so there's no state funds here.
• And in doing so, she sent the state claims back to the state court. But at that time, Mr.

Committee: All ALC-CLAIMS REVIEW/LITIGATION REPORTS OVERSIGHT

Summary: The committee first reviewed litigation reports from the Department of Labor and Licensing involving wage claims brought under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Members questioned the department’s authority, jurisdiction, use of attorney fees and costs, and whether defendants had to be licensed. The department explained it has long enforced wage and overtime laws, that the claims were small-dollar cases handled by investigators and counsel, and that one case had been paid and dismissed while others were unresolved or had service issues. The committee voted to review or batch-file the labor cases after discussion. The University of Arkansas System then reported three pending lawsuits: an age- and race-discrimination claim by a tenured professor that was resolved early; an ADA/FMLA retaliation claim by a former employee that survived in part on a motion to dismiss and was moving into discovery; and a Section 1983 claim against a UAMS sergeant arising from a parking-ticket dispute, with the university explaining that only punitive damages could create personal exposure for the officer. The committee reviewed each report and voted to accept them. The Department of Finance and Administration presented a proposed tax settlement reducing a sales-and-use tax assessment from about $48,000 to $20,000 and waiving interest and penalties, which the committee approved for review. The Claims Commission then presented several claims: an unpaid salary differential for a Department of Health employee, reissued warrants, unpaid DHS bills, and multiple negotiated settlements involving ATRS, UAMS, Arkansas State Police, and ARDOT. Members approved or affirmed most of these items, including a $65,000 settlement in the Tetronics/ATRS matter, a $150,000 medical-negligence settlement, and several vehicle-accident settlements. The most extended debate involved a tax-delinquent property sale claim by Sharon Greer and relatives. The claimant argued they were not properly notified and sought the $4,200 excess from the 2009 sale. Land Commissioner counsel explained the excess had escheated to the county after the statutory claim period expired, while members debated sovereign immunity, standing, heirs, and whether the committee could or should award money anyway. The committee ultimately chose to hold the matter over for further review in a future joint session rather than decide it immediately. The committee also heard appeals from dismissed claims, including a UAMS medical-negligence claim, a land-sale notice claim, a pothole claim against ARDOT, and a judicial-immunity claim against the Court of Appeals; most dismissals were affirmed, and the Simpson matter was held over for additional review after the claimant testified.

Transcript Highlights:

• All other support and opposition can be stated at the standing mic when called upon to simply state name
• This is where employee ownership changes everything.
• employees at their non-ESOP counterparts.
• And in March, the state of... ...the state of Washington signed legislation to regulate ALPR use and
• It's been seven years, as you stated in your opening testimony, since the California State Auditor first

Committee: House Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• So 65% comes to the state board.
• . employees. employees.
• Now that varies from state to state, but our staff is more than capable.
• </c> state side and the county side of that. state side and the county side of that.
• and losing qualified employees.

Summary: The House Budget Review Subcommittee on General Government met for its third meeting, approved the minutes, and heard a budget presentation from the Kentucky Department of Agriculture. Department representatives Brandon Reid, Lee Macintosh, and Mark Bolan outlined the agency’s funding mix and requested support for several priorities in House Bill 500, including continuation of existing items, county fair grants, and an additional $5 million for the new economic development fund. They also discussed a capital request to replace two aging scale trucks, noting the vehicles are from 2002 and 2006 and have become unreliable and expensive to repair. The department emphasized several additional needs: funding to begin regulating and inspecting electric vehicle charging stations through the weights and measures division, retention and recruitment funding after losing 108 employees over three years, and a request to pay off tobacco-related debt service so more money can flow through the tobacco formula. They also cited House Bill 417, filed by Speaker Osborne, as supporting farmland preservation, saying the agency has a program ready but needs funding to implement it. Officials said the farm-to-food-banks and rural mental health items in the budget were acceptable as reduced by the tobacco formula. Members asked questions about pump inspection fees and staffing losses. The department said the inspection fee is $100 per station, not per pump, and that the same fee applies even to larger stations. On retention and recruitment, officials said the cost of turnover is significant but they did not have a dollar estimate. No votes were taken beyond the motion to approve the minutes, and the meeting ended with a motion to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• That is not true in most states. Most states have become more reliant on imports.
• 2,000 in South Sarasota County and 3,500 employees across the state, so it is a large company.
• My employees are happy. So for the state of Florida, I think it has to be a win-win and a risk.
• My employees are happy. So for the state of Florida, I think it has to be a win-win and a risk.
• every other state.

Committee: Senate Commerce and Tourism

Summary: The Commerce and Tourism Committee met to hear an overview of its jurisdiction and then focused primarily on Florida manufacturing. Secretary of Commerce Alex Kelly described manufacturing as central to a more resilient, diversified economy, citing the 2023 Florida Manufacturing Report and noting strong growth in manufacturing businesses, jobs, exports, and workforce programs. He emphasized that most Florida manufacturers are small businesses, that the sector is increasingly STEM- and technology-driven, and that the state’s main challenge is workforce aging and the need to retain trained talent. Members also discussed how to better expose students and parents to manufacturing careers, improve startup access to capital, and strengthen regional manufacturing corridors and transportation links. Kevin Carr of FloridaMakes said Florida is on track to become a top-five manufacturing state, but warned that productivity, technology adoption, and workforce shortages remain key issues. He said a proposed manufacturing bill would create a chief manufacturing officer and help address workforce, technology, and market-visibility challenges. Bain Beecher of PGT Innovations described the company’s growth and community role, but highlighted obstacles such as affordable housing, insurance costs, permitting delays, supply-chain disruptions, and limited awareness of manufacturing careers among students and parents. Andrew Kosowski of Veterans Metal focused on small- and medium-sized manufacturers, citing labor shortages, the cost of adopting new technology, regulatory burdens, and cybersecurity compliance as major pressures, and urged support for the draft manufacturing bill. Brian Giuliani of the Port of Tampa Bay outlined the port’s cargo mix, infrastructure investments, and role in moving fuel, construction materials, and manufactured goods, saying the port’s expansion and transloading plans could better connect Florida manufacturers to suppliers and markets. Committee members repeatedly stressed the need to promote manufacturing careers earlier in school, improve public perception of the industry, and reduce barriers to investment. No formal vote was taken during the discussion, but the panelists broadly supported the draft manufacturing legislation and the committee’s focus on manufacturing policy.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and these employees would not be state employees.
• , and these employees would not be state employees.
• these employees would not be state employees.
• It's heavily influenced by the state government, but the employees are not state employees.
• But the employees are not state employees. You don't go through the state HR office.

Summary: The meeting focused on finalizing recommendations from the Delaware Nuclear Energy Task Force, with most of the discussion centered on how the state should organize itself to evaluate and potentially pursue nuclear power. Public commenters strongly supported nuclear energy, emphasizing energy reliability, economic competitiveness, data center demand, and the need for Delaware to act quickly. Several speakers argued that Delaware is falling behind neighboring states and should not delay if it wants to attract developers and preserve access to federal tax incentives. Members then worked through revisions to the recommendations, especially the section on state actions moving forward. There was broad agreement that Delaware needs a clearly empowered leadership structure, but disagreement over the best form: a cabinet-level energy agency, an expanded existing agency such as DENREC, a dedicated coordinator, an expanded Sustainable Energy Utility, or a separate quasi-independent authority. Some members favored a nimble, one-off entity with bonding and financing authority; others cautioned against creating a new body outside state government and stressed the need for coordination with existing agencies, public oversight, and cost discipline. The group also discussed adding responsibilities such as site identification, public engagement, coordination with PJM and federal agencies, and financing tools, while removing or folding in items that seemed duplicative or too broad. The committee also revised earlier modules to broaden the focus from small modular reactors to nuclear power more generally, while keeping the task force’s original SMR work in view. Members agreed to keep recommendations on state and local regulatory readiness, financial mechanisms, permitting coordination, and public engagement, and to add a recommendation for Delaware to participate as an observer in the Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative through NASEO and NARUC. The committee approved the revised Module Four recommendations by vote, with one abstention from Tom Noyes. Minutes from the prior meeting were also approved with minor corrections.

Transcript Highlights:

• On page two, I see and understand that it states all employees materially involved in this program, including
• victim witness coordinators to be state employees.
• Those are not state employees. That's what we're trying to do.
• So right now, they're either county employees or grant employees.
• Even if they're grant employees, they're county employees.

Committee: All LEGISLATIVE JOINT AUDITING

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from the prior meeting and then heard several audit-related reports. The executive committee report noted audit and special reports were scheduled for standing committees and the full Legislative Joint Audit Committee, with one requested report still in progress. The City, County, and Local report covered delinquent private water and sewer audits, reinstatement of turnback funds for entities that filed required reports, and action involving the town of Daisy, which was directed to repay misused street funds at 10% of general fund revenue annually. The education and state agencies reports included higher education audits and state agency findings, with some reports filed and others deferred to the February meeting for additional information or corrective-action details. The committee then took up a special audit of the Charles W. Donaldson Scholars Academy at UA Little Rock. Legislative Audit reported that the program, funded with $10 million in desegregation money plus a $50,000 grant, awarded $1.87 million in scholarships to 379 students, with 116 graduates, but found numerous eligibility and disbursement problems, including scholarships to ineligible students, excessive awards, improper documentation, and unclear disposition of some assets. Committee members questioned UALR representatives about oversight, staffing, and whether funds were properly used, and also heard from Philander Smith College about its limited role in verifying enrollment. Members expressed concern about the program’s results and the lack of detail on accountability, and the committee voted to table the report until the next meeting for further review and requested additional information, including the federal court order and more detail on expenditures and oversight. Finally, the committee reviewed the annual disposition report on matters referred to prosecutors and the Attorney General for 2024. Staff said 164 matters were referred, with 28 resulting in criminal charges and convictions, 39 still under review, 96 not charged, and others dismissed or pending; 20 convictions produced fines, restitution, and audit-cost orders, and bond trust fund claims were paid in some cases. Prosecutor Coordinator and Attorney General representatives explained that some referrals do not meet criminal standards, may lack intent, or are otherwise not prosecutable, and members asked for more standardized reporting, clearer explanations of why cases are not charged, and more information on restitution efforts. The committee discussed possible templates, training, and better coordination, then voted to file the report and adjourned, with the next meeting set for February 12, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• On page two, I see and understand that it states all employees materially involved in this program, including
• victim witness coordinators to be state employees.
• Those are not state employees. That's what we're trying to do.
• So right now, they're either county employees or grant employees.
• Even if they're grant employees, they're county employees.

Committee: All LEGISLATIVE JOINT AUDITING

Transcript Highlights:

• We have seen it work well in other parts of California and even in other states.
• The Legislature is absolutely clear that there cannot be a cost to the state.
• Please come to the mic and state your name, affiliation, and position.
• The employee contribution is being made; the employer contribution stops.
• Leah Griffin, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, proud co-sponsor in support

Committee: Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Transcript Highlights:

• Is it okay if I just state the question?
• can release an employee, even if they're tenured.
• in charge of 100 employees and 2,000 students.
• I mean, we have ways that the state can require it if the state is paying for it, but it's... ...that
• the state can require it if the state is paying for it, but if the state is not paying for it, then

Committee: House Elementary and Secondary Education

Summary: The Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education met in executive session and first took up House Concurrent Resolution 31. A committee substitute was adopted after the sponsor explained revisions to the proposed civics and patriotism work group, including clearer qualifications, DESE’s role in producing seals, recognition levels for gold/silver/bronze, and a special recognition letter for students entering military service. Ranking member Steinhoff supported the substitute, saying the changes improved implementation and likely reduced fiscal impact. The substitute was then passed do pass, and the committee later corrected the recorded vote on HCR 31 from 15-0 to 16-0. The committee then considered a combined substitute for House Bills 21, 26, and 2197, focused on building-level administrator evaluations and nonrenewal procedures. The substitute required administrators to be evaluated at least once per contract year, required written notice of renewal or nonrenewal by March 1, and gave nonrenewed administrators the right to request written reasons and a closed-door hearing before the school board. Members discussed the removal of earlier language that would have created automatic renewal if deadlines were missed and the decision not to create tenure for principals. Concerns were raised about whether the hearing right gave administrators more protection than other employees, but sponsors said the intent was to ensure annual evaluations and transparency without granting tenure. The committee adopted an amendment, rolled it into a new substitute, and passed the substitute do pass by a 17-0 vote. After leaving executive session, the committee heard House Bill 3489 from Representative Hurlbert. The bill, patterned after Arkansas legislation, would expand access to workforce development assessments such as WorkKeys and allow up to nine hours of college credit for demonstrated workplace skills as recommended by the American Council on Education. Testimony from ACT, the Missouri Chamber, and DESE supported the goal of elevating career readiness, noting employer demand for skilled workers, existing use of WorkKeys in Missouri, and its role in career and technical education and accountability systems. Members asked about the bill’s relationship to the governor’s workforce executive order, whether the language should be mandatory or permissive, and how the credits would transfer. The hearing on HB 3489 concluded without a vote, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Treasurer, and the Washington State Investment Board, and then finally the Office of the State Actuary
• This is similar to what DRS's deferred comp program currently does for state employees with auto-enrollment
• What are the impacts to the state?
• The Washington State Investment Board needs clarity from the state legislature.
• I'm a taxpayer in Washington State, and I am here to argue that Washington State pensions should...

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Summary: The Select Committee on Pension Policy opened its 2025 interim with roll call, approval of the prior minutes, and a brief administrative update on meeting procedures, new members, and a planned change to hold officer elections in June rather than immediately. Staff then presented a high-level recap of the 2025 legislative session, focusing on pension-related bills affecting Plans 1, 2, and 3, including the failed Plans 1 COLA and month-of-death bills, enacted changes on retire/rehire rules, state actuary appointments, service credit purchases, excess compensation, and a budget proviso directing study of proposed LEOFF 1 merger/termination concepts. Staff also highlighted ESSB 5357, which changes funding policy and the assumed rate of return, and noted that a deeper briefing on that complex bill may be needed. The committee then received an interim kickoff presentation explaining the SCPP’s role, membership, meeting structure, public participation, and the typical process for studying issues. Staff reviewed the draft interim work plan, which will be shaped by statutory studies, annual agency reports, legislative outcomes, stakeholder requests, and committee goals. Key upcoming work includes the mandated study of LEOFF 1 merger and termination concepts, the state actuary’s odd-year economic assumption recommendations, annual updates from DRS, OSA, the LEOFF 2 Board, and the State Investment Board, and other recurring reports such as the DRS benchmarking study and actuarial valuation materials. Members also discussed the importance of understanding asset smoothing and long-term funding impacts, and staff said updated contribution projections will be available later in the fall. During public comment, several speakers urged the committee and the State Investment Board to address climate-related financial risk and divest from fossil fuels, arguing that current coal, oil, and gas holdings are too large and that existing screening methods undercount exposure. One commenter also asked the committee to consider climate risk in the upcoming long-term economic assumptions study. Another public commenter, representing school retirees and administrators, urged continued study of COLA proposals and asked the committee to review the recently enacted funding bill and a separate bill related to COLA financing. The meeting concluded with a short break and adjournment of the full committee portion before the executive committee session.