Transcript Highlights:

• mandatory sentence of life without the eligibility for release or, when warranted, subjected to capital punishment

Summary: The committee heard a series of domestic security and law enforcement presentations from the Florida Sheriffs Association, Florida Police Chiefs Association, Florida Highway Patrol, and FDLE. Sheriff Rob Hardwick outlined the sheriffs’ legislative priorities, focusing on adding xylazine to Florida’s trafficking statute and increasing penalties for luring or enticing a child under 12 from a misdemeanor to a felony. He also discussed domestic security coordination, fusion center intelligence sharing, and jail-based reentry efforts. Members asked about xylazine prevalence in Broward County and whether canine units can detect it; Hardwick said he would follow up with data and noted that dogs are not specifically trained for xylazine, though fentanyl-certified dogs may alert on mixtures. Chief Charlie Vasquez of the Florida Police Chiefs Association presented three priorities: stronger protections for law enforcement, judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and their families when threatened because of their jobs; faster and more consistent access to blood-borne pathogen testing results after exposure incidents; and mandatory life without release for anyone convicted of murdering a police or correctional officer, reviving a version of the Jason Raynor Act. Senators asked about delays in blood testing after exposure, and Vasquez said officers can be forced to take prophylactic medication while waiting for results and that the process should be streamlined. Florida Highway Patrol Director Dave Kerner described FHP’s domestic security role, including criminal interdiction, canine units, traffic homicide investigations, aviation, drones, border operations, and responses to threats such as human smuggling and the October 7-related security posture at synagogues and campuses. He said staffing remains constrained by vacancies and pay disparities, so he was not seeking more authorized troopers at this time. FDLE Deputy Commissioner David Binder then reviewed the state’s domestic security structure, fusion centers, critical infrastructure assessments, and grant funding, warning that federal homeland security dollars have declined sharply while threats remain high. He highlighted work on drone mitigation, radiological detection, vehicle barriers, and school security assessments, and emphasized the need for continued interagency coordination. The committee took no formal votes and adjourned after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS INSURING OUR SYSTEM REHABILITATES AND RE-INTEGRATES INDIVIDUALS RATHER THAN PUNISHES

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't create places of punishment and isolation.
• We don't create places of punishment and isolation.
• We don't create places of punishment and isolation.
• problem worse, and so if this project were allowed to continue, we'd be paying out massive funds to punish
• problem worse, and so if this project were allowed to continue, we'd be paying out massive funds to punish

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Public Safety Committee held a hearing on House Bill 433, which would appropriate $4 million for Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation re-entry services to connect offenders with community-based services. Director Tommy Johnson said the department supports the bill’s intent but noted the governor’s executive budget already includes $4 million for the same purpose and asked that the measure defer to that budget. Supporters, including the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission, Community Alliance on Prisons, and the ACLU, backed the funding but urged that it be tied to a clear re-entry plan, performance measures, transparency, and regular reporting to the legislature. They emphasized that re-entry should begin at intake and involve community partnerships, housing, treatment, employment, and family reunification services. Committee members questioned the department about current re-entry services, pre-trial detainees, and how the new funds would be used. Johnson said the department’s current statewide re-entry budget is about $1.5 million to $1.7 million, separate from the larger Corrections Program Services Division budget for in-facility programs. He described the proposed $4 million as supporting a mix of services, including a pilot apprenticeship program, substance abuse treatment, navigator or warm-handoff services, and short-term transitional housing. He also said the department already tracks performance outcomes in its annual report and can provide a matrix showing the intake-to-discharge process, program contracts, and volunteer organizations. The discussion also covered pre-trial detainees, electronic monitoring, and mental health services. Johnson said the department has limited jurisdiction over pre-trial detainees but works with courts to seek supervised release when possible; he noted that many requests are denied, though electronic monitoring has improved release rates somewhat. On mental health, he said the jail is not an ideal therapeutic setting for people found unfit to proceed and suggested a secure community-based step-down facility run by the Department of Health for those needing care above what the jail can provide but below forensic-level treatment. No vote or final action on the bill was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I think that's why, to speak to Keith's point a little bit further, it's why there's no punishment
• per</c><00:15:04.079><c> se</c><00:15:04.320><c> for</c><00:15:04.639><c> the</c> why there's no punishment
• per se for the why there's no punishment per se for the doicile doicile doicile state<00:15:07.760><
• </c><01:55:52.639><c> for</c><01:55:53.199><c> people</c> reverse this is a punishment for people reverse
• this is a punishment for people actually<01:55:53.920><c> trying</c><01:55:54.159><c> to</c> actually

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't have a lot of punishments. We're not punishment-oriented.
• We don't have a lot<03:51:31.279><c> of</c><03:51:31.439><c> punishments.
• </c><03:51:32.080><c> We're</c><03:51:32.239><c> not</c><03:51:32.399><c> punishment</c> lot of punishments
• We're not punishment lot of punishments.
• We're not punishment oriented.<03:51:34.000><c> Um</c><03:51:35.120><c> you</c><03:51:35.279><c> know

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But before we punish them, we... Um,<02:36:16.800><c> hello.
• from</c><02:36:30.319><c> now</c><02:36:31.439><c> will</c><02:36:31.760><c> be</c> ...before we punish
• </c><02:39:50.080><c> uh</c><02:39:50.960><c> before</c><02:39:51.280><c> we</c><02:39:51.439><c> punish
• for</c><03:31:52.640><c> something</c><03:31:53.040><c> that</c><03:31:53.439><c> happened</c> punishment
• for something that happened punishment for something that happened on<03:31:54.000><c> a</c><03:31:54.239

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Education Policy and Administration Committee met to hear a non-germane amendment to House Bill 131, which concerns bullying and cyberbullying prevention. Representative Glenn Cordelli, the prime sponsor, said the amendment was intended to revise and improve language from last year’s SB 210 and to incorporate measures from a cyberbullying bill previously passed by the House. He described changes to school communication requirements, mandatory reporting of bullying and retaliation, stronger investigation and collaboration requirements for cross-district cases, added safety and remediation language, a required conference with the alleged perpetrator and parents if available, updated reporting deadlines, and disciplinary consequences for harassment, intimidation, retaliation, and false reports. He also noted a later amendment would be needed to insert the words “the perpetrator” in one section, and he explained that some changes were meant to align with prior legislation and legislative drafting suggestions. Committee members raised several concerns. Representative Murray questioned the treatment of private and parochial schools, the change from gross negligence to negligence, and the removal of a definition of bullying based on imbalance of power and perceived characteristics. Representative Damon also objected to deleting that definition, arguing it would narrow the scope of bullying too much. Representative Han spoke in opposition, saying the amendment was too broad, unnecessary in parts, and not ready for final action; he criticized the removal of the imbalance-of-power language, the conference requirement when parents may not participate, and the reporting obligations for bus drivers and others. Cordelli responded that some issues were already addressed in prior law or SB 210 and that private schools have their own policies. Michelle Wongran of New Hampshire Legal Assistance testified in opposition, saying the bill was being heard without enough notice and that it does far more than the committee analysis suggests. She said the amendment adds undefined retaliation language, imposes reporting duties on school vendors and contractors, may conflict with FERPA and other federal privacy rules, and includes provisions that could have serious implications for schools and students. She said she supports parental involvement and some conference provisions in concept, but urged the committee to reject the amendment or at least send it through the normal legislative process for fuller review. No vote was taken during the hearing portion described in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• We also often get punished for asking questions, too.
• We also often get punished<00:48:13.599><c> for</c><00:48:13.920><c> asking</c><00:48:14.400><c> questions
• </c><00:48:16.160><c> For</c> punished for asking questions, too.
• For punished for asking questions, too.
• of a child, neglect malicious punishment of a child, neglect of<01:16:40.080><c> a</c><01:16:40.239>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Doing to my people was cruel and unusual punishment, essentially, because they were watching animals
• He's a good dog, but it seems like muzzling is a superior alternative to life-threatening punishment.
• ><c> life-threatening</c> um alternative to life-threatening um alternative to life-threatening punishment
• would you agree agreed it's a punishment would you agree agreed it's a much<00:35:17.400><c> uh</c><
• But what we don't want to do is punish people with disabilities or make them feel unwelcome, require

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a work session on a bill arising from the Lee case involving animal seizures and humane society involvement. Members and the commissioner discussed concerns about due process, lack of clear notice to animal owners, the need for owners to understand when they are surrendering ownership, and whether humane agents should have additional training or certification. Several members also questioned the role of the NH SPCA and humane societies, the absence of oversight, and whether there was any financial or policy conflict in their involvement. The commissioner said the Department of Agriculture does not have a direct relationship with humane societies, but does coordinate with police on seizures, and noted that problems tend to arise when agencies do not consult the department first. Testimony and discussion focused on possible fixes to the bill, including clearer written notice of rights, requiring a third-party qualified veterinarian or other neutral evaluator, establishing the condition of animals at the time of seizure for later court proceedings, and possibly using teleconferencing with a veterinarian in limited circumstances. Some members suggested the bill may need a broader study committee, while others said it should be amended now rather than delayed. The chair said the bill would be worked on further and sent to the subcommittee for more detailed review. The committee then opened a hearing on HB 250, which would allow local governing bodies to regulate dog muzzling. Representative Jodi Newell testified that the bill was intended to let municipalities respond to dangerous dogs, citing Keene’s attempt to require muzzling after a serious incident but lack of clear authority under current law. Deborah LeBlanc also testified about a dog attack that seriously injured her dog and said a muzzle requirement could have prevented the attack. Committee members asked about the incident, existing dog-control laws, and whether the dog had been leashed; the discussion suggested the bill was meant to clarify local authority over muzzling as a public safety measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we have to ask ourselves, do we want to end up in that surveillance state, in the punishment of thought
• c> that surveillance state that surveillance state in<02:35:16.479><c> the</c><02:35:16.640><c> punishment
• And uh I'm not going<03:18:01.200><c> to</c><03:18:01.359><c> punish</c><03:18:01.840><c> banks</c><03
• :18:02.399><c> because</c><03:18:03.520><c> because</c> going to punish banks because because going to
• punish banks because because because because because people<03:18:06.319><c> start</c><03:18:06.640>

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, the process being the punishment if there was some coordinated activity against them. >> I
• You know, the process being the punishment if there was some coordinated activity against them. >> I
• Absent that consent, the recording would be a crime, punishable as a misdemeanor or in some instances
• a</c><04:22:28.878><c> crime</c> the recording would be a crime the recording would be a crime punishable
• as a misdemeanor or in some punishable as a misdemeanor or in some instances<04:22:32.240><c> as</c>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Here's my feeling: I've seen Native Americans, when they fail to comply with the law, they're punished
• And if they fail to comply with the law, they should be punished as well.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on the University of California’s compliance with NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA and the pace of repatriating Native American human remains and cultural items. The State Auditor said UC has made progress but still lacks urgency and accountability, citing chronic problems with incomplete inventories, limited staffing, inconsistent campus practices, unsecured or loaned items, and weak systemwide oversight. The auditor reported that 12 of 19 prior recommendations remain open, and projected that, at current rates, some campuses would not finish repatriation for many years. The Native American Heritage Commission and its executive director echoed those concerns, saying the work has been too slow for laws that have been in place for decades and that enforcement regulations are being finalized. Tribal representatives and lawmakers stressed the sacred nature of the remains, the need for clearer deadlines, and the need for stronger consequences and legislative oversight if UC does not comply. UC officials responded that the system has substantially reformed its policies since 2019, including new consultation requirements, equal-number campus and systemwide NAGPRA committees, more staffing, and more funding. Teresa Maldonado said UC has repatriated more than 9,000 of about 17,000 ancestors and large numbers of funerary and cultural objects, and that UC is continuing to implement audit recommendations, improve transparency, and expand support for tribes. UC Berkeley, UC San Diego, UC Riverside, and UC Santa Barbara each described campus-specific progress, including more staff, more consultations, more searches of high-risk buildings and labs, updated databases and timelines, and increased repatriations. Berkeley said it has repatriated over 80% of ancestors it held and is on track to meet its federal deadline; San Diego said it has repatriated 73% of ancestors and 53% of cultural items; Riverside said nearly all known ancestors and associated funerary objects have been repatriated or noticed; and Santa Barbara said it has rebuilt its program with clear benchmarks and stronger oversight. Members of the Legislature pressed both sides on whether UC’s efforts are fast enough and whether the university’s reports are specific enough to show real progress. Several lawmakers asked what consequences exist for noncompliance, how the Legislature can use its budget authority without violating UC’s constitutional autonomy, and whether campuses should be required to set clearer completion dates and spend allocated funds more fully. UC and the auditor both said tribal consultation must remain central, but lawmakers emphasized that the current timelines—some extending into the 2030s and 2040s—are unacceptable. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational oversight, with the auditor and UC officials indicating they will continue reporting back through future audits and updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• Your view is this basically punishing good behavior for smart money...
• Yeah, I mean, you absolutely removed our incentives and you're punishing my district specifically for

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we as an institution need to think of ways in which we punish those who try to use that to hurt people
• ensure that there are systems in place to audit access to these systems and then systems in place to punish

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on responding to federal immigration enforcement in Massachusetts, with opening remarks from Sen. Liz Miranda and Rep. Bud Williams emphasizing fear in immigrant communities, recent ICE operations, and the need to learn from advocates and affected residents rather than debate individual bills. The hearing was organized around three topics: detention, arrests, and surveillance, with members repeatedly asking what the legislature can do to improve transparency, legal access, and oversight. On detention, Leah Hastings of Prisoners’ Legal Services said most people end up in ICE custody through contact with the criminal legal system and argued that state carceral systems are deeply intertwined with immigration enforcement. She described conditions at Plymouth County House of Correction and Burlington ICE holding as concerning, citing limited medical care, disability accommodations, solitary confinement, retaliatory transfers, and poor attorney access. Hastings said Massachusetts should reduce funding for sheriffs and the Department of Corrections, ban intergovernmental service agreements and 287(g) agreements, and invest instead in housing, treatment, and other community supports. Members also discussed ICE reimbursement, the immigrant legal defense fund, and the need for more immigration attorneys. On arrests and enforcement tactics, David Albright of JALSA said federal immigration enforcement has been expanded by major new funding and incentives, including higher payments for 287(g) and bed contracts, and he noted that most ICE detainees nationally do not have criminal records. He said Massachusetts has one 287(g) agreement with the Department of Corrections and one IGSA with Plymouth County, and that ICE also uses Burlington, Hanscom, and informal local collaboration in places such as Milford and Auburn. Danny Tampona of Neighbor to Neighbor and the LUCE Rapid Response Network described more than 10,000 hotline calls from 46 cities and towns, with arrests often involving masked agents, surveillance of workers and families, traffic stops, broken windows, and arrests at check-ins or schools; he said the network is concentrated in places including Everett, Chelsea, Lynn, New Bedford, Milford, Marlboro, Framingham, and Springfield. He urged legislation requiring clear identification for law enforcement, limits on surveillance technologies, and stronger legal defense resources. On surveillance, Joshua Dancoff of Citizens for Juvenile Justice argued that current state policies allow broad sharing of fingerprints and surveillance data with ICE, including through BRIC, the Massachusetts Fusion Center, and municipal police policies. He cited cases in Chelsea and Everett where children were taken from police custody into ICE custody and said many departments automatically share arrest fingerprints and other information with federal authorities. He recommended limiting fingerprint sharing, restricting surveillance databases and task-force participation, and curbing police and sheriff collaboration with ICE even where no formal 287(g) exists. Members and witnesses also discussed the need for more immigration lawyers, possible bar advocate-style funding for immigration defense, and legislative action to prevent further collaboration and deportation infrastructure.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's about being able to speak up when something is wrong without fear of punishment and without being
• at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how strong your anti-harassment policy is if the culture punishes

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development held a lengthy hearing on June 18 focused on workers’ compensation, independent contractor and classification issues, workplace safety, warehouse worker protections, extreme temperature protections, retaliation against injured workers, and workplace bullying. Committee chairs outlined procedures for the hybrid hearing and noted that members would be leaving intermittently for floor votes. Testimony also touched on a bill to expand workers’ compensation disfigurement benefits by removing the current $15,000 cap and extending coverage beyond scars on the hands, neck, and face. A major theme was workplace safety in warehouses and in extreme heat or cold. Teamsters, warehouse workers, and labor advocates described high injury rates, strict quotas, lack of water, inadequate ventilation, frozen or missing safety equipment, and pressure to work through heat waves and snowstorms. Supporters urged favorable reports on bills protecting warehouse workers and requiring employers to adopt heat- and cold-safety plans, while the NFIB opposed the temperature bill as overly prescriptive and burdensome for small businesses. Sen. Edwards, Sen. Roche, Rep. O’Day, and others argued that the measures are needed to prevent heat illness, provide shade, water, rest breaks, training, and emergency plans, and to cover all workers regardless of immigration status. Another major subject was the “Act to Protect Injured Workers,” backed by labor groups, immigrant worker centers, legal services organizations, and individual workers. Witnesses said employers often retaliate after injuries by threatening deportation, lying about how injuries occurred, delaying care, or firing workers, and they supported stronger anti-retaliation enforcement, multilingual notices, and a rebuttable presumption of retaliation within 90 days of protected activity. The Mass AFL-CIO and immigrant advocacy groups supported the bill and opposed measures they said would weaken employee classification standards. Testimony also supported a funeral-benefits bill to raise workers’ compensation death-benefit reimbursement for burial and funeral costs, based on a family’s experience after a workplace fatality. The committee heard additional testimony on workplace bullying bills, with some witnesses urging a new legal duty for employers to prevent and respond to bullying, while others described the harms of toxic workplaces and the lack of effective remedies.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then I found out that if I fought, I would be the one who would be punished, and the ones who came
• up to me and said, 'Oh, you're a Jew and you are this and that,' they wouldn't be punished.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Combating Anti-Semitism opened by approving the minutes from its November 5, 2025 meeting and outlining plans for its next meeting on November 20, when it expects to vote on the draft master report and recommendations. The chair explained that revised drafts would be circulated, changes would be handled by motion, and the final vote would be by roll call. The meeting then moved through several public panels focused on prevention, education, workplace support, and community safety. Parents for Peace testified that anti-Semitism and extremism should be treated as a public health crisis and urged state funding for training in K-12 schools, healthcare, and law enforcement. The panel described its intervention work with radicalized youth and families, argued for early-warning training for educators, and recommended diversion resources for courts and prosecutors so cases can be addressed before they escalate. Commissioners asked about the origins of radicalization, the need for school-based training, and how to connect courts and police to available resources. Project Shema’s Orrin Jacobson argued that effective anti-Semitism education must be nuanced, pluralistic, and grounded in a better understanding of Jewish identity and contemporary anti-Semitism, especially in conversations about Israel and Palestine. He said the group has run dozens of workshops in Massachusetts and emphasized that institutions should adopt content-neutral norms, train staff and administrators, and measure whether trainings lower tensions and increase willingness to intervene. Commissioners asked about handling activists who reject nuance, the role of faculty versus students, and whether classroom norms should limit teachers from advancing personal agendas. A workplace panel from Klaal and Combined Jewish Philanthropies presented survey data showing many Jewish employees feel unsafe being openly Jewish at work and that antisemitism training is the top requested support. They described rapid growth in Jewish employee resource groups, existing programming and stipends for ERG leaders, and recommended mandatory anti-Semitism training, support for Jewish affinity groups in public and private sectors, and broader convenings of major employers. The commission also heard from Truah rabbis and educators, who urged stronger interfaith solidarity, a state office of faith-based and neighborhood partnerships, and explicit attention to democracy and civil rights as part of anti-Semitism strategy. After a recess, the commission heard from Israeli-American, Russian Jewish, and Persian Jewish witnesses who described antisemitism as a lived, personal, and civic issue affecting immigrants and their families. They called for inclusion of diverse Jewish voices in state initiatives, stronger protections for Israeli-American businesses, and recognition that anti-Zionist rhetoric often becomes direct harassment of Jews. The chair said the testimony and suggested edits would be incorporated into the draft report, and the meeting ended with plans for further revisions before the final vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, that I can't be paid for or punished, you know, for anything that I do in my legislative role.
• I can't be rewarded or punished for anything that I do in my legislative role, and I can't lobby on behalf

Keywords: 904, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Oh, yes, that I can’t be paid for or punished, you know, for anything that I do in my legislative role
• I can’t be rewarded or punished for anything that I do in my legislative role, and I can’t lobby on behalf

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

Transcript Highlights:

• And the complaint comes because the schools that are growing get punished for a while.
• So the idea was, if we're going to make a dramatic change or any change, they shouldn't get punished

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And the complaint comes because the schools that are growing get punished for a while.
• So the idea was, if we're going to make a dramatic change, or any change, they shouldn't get punished

Summary: The committee met to discuss higher education funding and capital building policy. Members first heard an update from NDUS Deputy Commissioner Lisa Johnson on low-producing academic programs. She described a proposed board policy using a five-year rolling window and thresholds of fewer than 10 undergraduate graduates or fewer than 5 graduate graduates, with programs flagged for three consecutive review periods going to the board. Possible outcomes would include continuation, continuation with modifications, inactivation, or termination. Members asked about how the review would account for program costs, service to other students, workforce demand, and the difference between inactivation and termination. Johnson said the board would consider broader factors and that campuses already do detailed program analysis. Several members also asked about cost savings and staffing impacts from program terminations, and Johnson said the board would try to provide more information later. The committee then received a report on the Capital Building Fund from Jamie Wilkie. He reviewed the program’s history, matching requirements, and recent uses, noting that about $334 million in state and matching dollars has been invested overall, with most going to deferred maintenance and extraordinary repairs. Members discussed whether the program is reducing deferred maintenance and requested updated systemwide data on deferred maintenance and campus space utilization. Wilkie said the board is considering a new study to update deferred maintenance figures, which are based on information more than 12 years old. He also reported that several institutions have used current biennium funds for projects such as residence hall renovations, health sciences housing, generators, and building repairs. Later, the committee began a detailed walkthrough of a draft bill that would replace the current higher education funding formula with an FTE-based model and also revise the capital building fund structure. The draft would use fall enrollment FTEs, add completion incentives for degrees in in-demand fields, and create a separate research funding component for UND and NDSU tied to doctoral completions and external research expenditures. Members raised concerns about the use of older data in the formula, the treatment of waivers, the weighting of professional and health sciences programs, and the use of CIP codes to define CTE and education incentives. The bill draft would also combine capital building fund tiers, broaden eligible uses for deferred maintenance and legislatively authorized projects, change matching requirements, repeal the old formula chapter and the capital pool, and transfer funds from the Strategic Investment and Improvements Fund into the capital building fund. No final votes were taken during the portion provided; the meeting was primarily discussion and review.

Transcript Highlights:

• No bus driver, paraprofessional, cafeteria worker, custodian, clerk, nurse, or teacher should be punished
• It also prohibits schools from taking recess away as punishment, except in limited safety-related situations

Bills: HR249, HR251, HB395, HB902, SB83, SB132, SB157, SB338, SB450, SB484, SB501, SB507

Keywords: artificial intelligence, AI, BESE, State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, content standards, K-12 education, public schools, curriculum, digital literacy, computer science, STEM, technology education, student privacy, ethical AI, workforce development, future-ready workforce, instructional resources, education policy, school standards, Louisiana education