Transcript Highlights:

• Along with that, we implemented a migration for rapid response processing.
• So this is response um processing.
• normal in every business process change that I've gone through in my career.
• normal in every business process change that I've gone through in my career.
• The process is normal in every business process change that I've gone through in my career.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee approved the minutes from its June 30 meeting and then considered Capital Project 2515, a request from the Pease Development Authority Division of Ports and Harbors to spend up to $125,000 from the Harbor Dredging and Pier Maintenance Fund to replace a deteriorated 99-foot floating dock at Rye Harbor. Acting Director Richard Hartley said the dock is used for passenger loading and unloading for charters and whale-watching tours and is in poor condition. Representative Edgar moved approval, Representative Wiler seconded, and the motion carried. The committee then received several informational items, including quarterly and maintenance reports from the Department of Administrative Services, the Community College System of New Hampshire, and the Pease Development Authority. It also heard a presentation from the Department of Health and Human Services on Capital Project 2516, the Beneficiary Service Improvement project supporting closed-loop referrals and related systems. DHHS described the project as a mix of Medicaid enterprise functions and New Hampshire Care Connections tools, including provider modules, third-party liability, event notifications, and closed-loop referrals to connect health and human service providers. Officials said the project is largely federally funded, with capital funds representing only part of the overall effort. Members asked about the accounting breakdown, prior committee review, provider participation, patient experience, and public response. Representative Burr questioned whether the project had been fully presented previously and raised concerns about the scope and necessity of the $8 million effort; DHHS responded that earlier work was discussed in other committees and that the current presentation covered only capital funds. Senator Waters asked about user response and patient experience, and DHHS said feedback has been generally positive but the system is still in design and implementation. In response to questions about participation, DHHS said 84 providers are currently on the network and clarified that a “provider” generally means an individual organization or health system, not each individual clinician. The committee also set its next meeting for December 9 at 9:00 a.m. at Granite Place, Room 228, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've asked the utilities to implement their controlled outages processes.
• The RMR process is at ERCOT. It's outside of the PUC process.
• Ensure that Senate Bill 6 coincides with existing and in-process ERCOT.
• NPUC large load process to avoid duplicative regulation.
• The electrification of industrial processes takes off.

Bills: SB6, SB11, SB33

Keywords: electric power, interconnection, utilities, ERCOT, large load customers, water supply, sewer service, demand management, school prayer, Bible reading, religious text, public schools, Texas Education Code, student prayer, silent prayer, meditation, religious liberty, First Amendment, Establishment Clause, church and state

Transcript Highlights:

• And in this process, you don't do a cost analysis as thoroughly as the regulatory process that is ongoing
• So it gives you a little time in the planning, in the process.
• And that was the process.
• . process to be protected.
• This, early in the PET process. process, it basically changes the properties when it goes through the

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As we mentioned to the committee during the agency's overview, the odor rulemaking is in process.
• I agree that that is an important process improvement effort that the agency has been undertaking.
• Would it help speed up public engagement processes, or does it do the opposite?
• Currently, we are focusing on the Advisory Council creation and selection process.
• So there are some good examples of how we have tried to create a less intensive process.

Bills: HF1587, HF2293, HF2218, HF1208, HF1482

Keywords: HF1587, Cass County, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, DNR, condemnation, eminent domain, state land, surplus land, public waters, tribal land transfer, federally recognized Indian Tribe, tribal ownership, land conveyance, no consideration, land appropriation, natural resources, U.S. Highway 2, Section 27 Township 145 North Range 28 West, land return, Tribal sovereignty

Transcript Highlights:

• We have these processes for a reason.
• <01:38:33.440> is Um the certificate of need process is Um the certificate of need process
• 15:08.880> that through a number of other processes that through a number of other processes that
• This bill is about the review process. This bill is about the review process.
• Thank you, Senator Jacowski. process um is uh for light industrial process um is uh for light industrial

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• happens after election day to process happens after election day to process election<00:17:53.440
• all of the actual entry and processing all of the actual entry and processing of<00:20:39.880>
• the vouching process the vouching process you<01:17:26.800> still<01:17:27.040> have
• from the SSA matching process. from the SSA matching process.
• So, I don't I I've always process.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• is all due process. is all due process.
• <00:18:32.799> Uh disciplinary resolution process. Uh disciplinary resolution process.
• students have due process rights. students have due process rights.
• <00:32:43.360> It due process rights are to exist. It due process rights are to exist.
• process on campuses. process on campuses.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Funding Committee’s higher education subcommittee met to discuss HB 443, HB 510, and related issues. The chair explained the subcommittee membership and noted that Representative Luno was absent and replaced by Representative Bricky, with other full committee members allowed to participate in discussion but not final votes. No votes were taken during this meeting, and the chair said final subcommittee recommendations would likely come in the first week of November. On HB 443, which concerns terms of appointment to the Higher Education Commission, the chair described the bill as intended to let the governor replace members who are not attending or no longer representing the appointing organization. He said the prior governor supported the idea, but the current governor’s office believes the bill is unnecessary because nonattendance or loss of representation would already amount to resignation or removal. Members raised questions about legal authority and whether the same principle should apply to other boards. The chair said he was leaning toward finding the bill not needed, but would continue discussion later. The committee then spent most of the meeting on HB 510, which would establish due process rights for students, student organizations, and faculty at public higher education institutions and address collective bargaining issues. Supporters, including Representatives Papovich and Brown, argued the bill would provide clear, minimum protections, especially because campus rules are lengthy and vary by institution; Brown also suggested adding an independent ombudsman or representation for students. Opponents, including Representatives Burton and Bricky, said existing campus regulations already provide due process and that the bill could interfere with campus governance and collective bargaining. The chair and others discussed whether the bill’s definitions should be aligned with existing law to avoid confusion, and several members suggested using existing statutory definitions or cross-references. The chair also said the bill would apply only when disciplinary action is involved, not as a general challenge to DEI policies, though members referenced recent national examples involving DEI-related disputes as context.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that process has been in operate.
• <00:22:15.919> uh<00:22:16.240> more through the process uh more through the process
• So obviously here through this process.
• When when companies in this process.
• There's online ordering. processing uh plant operators processing uh plant operators became<01:02:48.799

Bills: HB0116, HB0056

Keywords: water rights, beneficial use, industrial production, hydrogen, applications, public welfare, carbon capture, energy standards, public utilities, environmental regulation, state law, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And the challenge there is that the right-of-way process is a variable process. It takes time.
• That's a time-consuming process.
• process is a variable<00:20:46.240> process.
• That's a time-consuming process.
• It's an evaluation process.

Keywords: 00:05 Call to Order and Roll Call 01:20 Road Projects 46:30 Approval of Minutes 46:50 Railroads 57:26 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Transportation met without a quorum, so it could not approve the minutes. The chair announced an Eastern Kentucky University health forum later that day and then proceeded with testimony on alternative delivery methods for road projects. Jason Sawala of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet and Chad Laroo of the Kentucky Association of Highway Contractors were sworn in and introduced themselves. Sawala explained KYTC’s use of alternative delivery tools, including design-build, construction manager/general contractor (CMGC), and public-private partnerships (P3s). He said the cabinet’s goal is to deliver the best value to taxpayers in terms of quality, cost, and time, and emphasized that alternative delivery is most useful on projects with special circumstances such as innovation needs, specialized technology, complex constructibility, schedule pressure, or early contractor input. He cited the cabinet’s wrong-way driving prevention project as an example where design-build helped evaluate technologies and coordinate with stakeholders such as EMS and first responders. He also outlined the main tradeoffs: alternative delivery can improve collaboration and sometimes accelerate schedules, but it also brings risks related to right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, changing scope, and the need for dedicated staff and compressed decision-making. He stressed that these methods are not a cure-all and are not appropriate for every project, while noting that traditional design-bid-build remains effective for most of KYTC’s work. Representative Branscum responded favorably, saying early contractor involvement is valuable and consistent with his experience in the vertical construction world. No votes or formal actions were taken because the committee lacked a quorum.

Transcript Highlights:

• Screening process.
• Income should not matter as to the selection process.
• was needed, and this bill creates a standardized process.
• Is there a certain process? Madam Speaker and gentlemen, yes.
• This is a really tenuous process to be able to get a voucher.

Transcript Highlights:

• But basically the same process anyway.
• But basically the same process anyway.
• What does end process mean?
• What does end process mean?
• It will no longer have to be a manual process, but it will be an automatic process.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee first heard the January 2026 follow-up to the special audit of the Arizona State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. The auditor’s contractor reported that the board had implemented or was in the process of implementing most of the 28 recommendations from the 2024 audit, but three remained unimplemented: resolving complaints within 180 days and two open meeting law recommendations. The follow-up also identified new concerns about outdated or incomplete public disciplinary records and the lack of a complete public records request log and response procedures. Committee members pressed the board on open meeting compliance, complaint delays, transparency, and lobbying activities, while the executive director said the board had adopted new policies, added staff and investigators, created an intake committee, improved complaint prioritization, and was transitioning to a new licensing platform. She also said the board had ended broad subpoenas, improved conflict-of-interest tracking, and was working to formalize its practices in rule. The committee did not take a vote or other formal action in the transcript provided. The committee then received the Arizona school district financial risk analysis for January 2026. The Auditor General’s office reported that the number of highest-risk districts increased from two to nine, and districts approaching the highest-risk category increased from seven to nine. The presentation explained the financial risk measures used, common risk patterns among the highest-risk districts, and the district action plans posted on the report website. Tucson Unified School District was used as an example of a highest-risk district, and Scottsdale Unified as an approaching-highest-risk district. Members asked about declining enrollment, reserve balances, negative fund balances, and the use of capital monies for operations. Sierra Vista Unified School District then presented its response to being identified as financially at risk. The superintendent said she had recently taken over and was implementing a turnaround plan that included a school closure, staffing reductions through attrition, spending freezes, tighter purchase controls, a three-year sustainable spending plan, and efforts to stabilize enrollment through outreach, customer-service changes, and alternative program offerings. She also said the district was redirecting some capital assistance to operations, renegotiating contracts, and improving communication with families and staff. Committee members questioned the district about declining enrollment, instructional spending, school safety, academic performance, and whether the action plan adequately addressed those issues. No formal vote or action was taken on the school district item in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And whereas the 18th voting process.
• If there is a recommendation process or Senate confirmation, that process has to be followed for the
• c><00:37:35.520> process.
• And a lot the general regular process.
• They just through the RFP process.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Duran said throughout the process is that at times this process felt that it was moving too quickly,
• What's your standard IPP process, which is also a new process that all regional centers are utilizing
• What's that process look like?
• I track the master plan process closely. I think it was a great process in many ways.
• So how long was your intake process?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Nothing else would change about the process, the process for appeals, process for variance... ...nothing
• else would change about the process, the process for appeals, process for variance, or any other provisions
• Nothing else would change about the process, the process for appeals, process for variance. nothing else
• would change about the process, the process for appeals, process for variance, or any other provisions
• But that's a process for that, right?

Summary: The House Labor and Industrial Relations Committee met on May 7, 2026, and first deferred several measures, including House Bill 460, Senate Bill 322, Senate Bill 32, Senate Bill 22, and House Bill 561. The committee then took up House Bill 819 by Chairman Cruz, which would replace Louisiana’s current workers’ compensation medical treatment schedule with the Official Disability Guidelines (ODG) by MCG as the primary guideline, while keeping the existing variance and appeal process. Cruz and MCG representative Troy Prevo argued that ODG is more comprehensive, updated more frequently, and used in many states, and said it could reduce delays, disability duration, and costs. Dr. Jason Picard, the state medical director, testified that Louisiana already uses ODG as a secondary reference in many cases because the state schedule lacks coverage for some body parts and treatments, and said the bill would not otherwise change the appeals process or care delivery. Committee members focused heavily on whether the bill would delay care or improve it. Several members questioned the private-company nature of ODG, the $400 annual subscription cost, and whether Louisiana doctors would be forced to rely on an out-of-state guideline. Rep. Glorioso and others raised concerns about preauthorization delays and proposed amendments to create tacit approval when treatment follows the schedule, require payment within 30 days, and make the carrier prove by clear and convincing evidence that care was not medically necessary to challenge it. Chairman Cruz said he was willing to work with those ideas, and the committee also discussed adding an on-ramp or legacy language so current patients would not be disrupted. Opposition testimony came from injured-worker advocates and representatives of medical and labor groups, including Joseph Jola St. and Robin Krumholt. They argued that Louisiana’s current guidelines are already working, that rates have fallen over time, and that the real problem is delay in approval rather than the content of the schedule. They said ODG is overly rigid, cost-driven, and can lead to denials that shift costs to workers, Medicaid, or private health insurance. They urged the committee to keep Louisiana’s existing system and instead adopt tacit approval under current law. The bill was still under discussion at the close of the transcript, with amendments being read and no final vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank everybody who’s been part of this process.
• I want to make sure that that process is respected.
• , and that's why I want to thank the process.
• CEQA is all about public process. This process provides environmental justice communities a voice.
• The process is absolutely wrong here.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• due<00:14:44.280> process,<00:14:45.080> having due process, but due process, having
• process here. process here.
• > process.
• can't request that process. can't request that process.
• in the process. in the process.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They do have a process. They do have a process. Not been auditing whether they actually do it.
• They do have a process that's like a couple years later.
• pay process, in order to make that a viable alternative to a protracted litigation process?
• The report speaks for itself and was the product of a very robust process.
• Can you explain or clarify the audit process for us? Sure. Thank you.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on the California Earthquake Authority’s SB 254 report and broader options for reforming California’s utility wildfire recovery system. The chair framed the discussion around the Palisades and Eaton fires, the scale of wildfire-related costs on utility bills, and the need to weigh trade-offs among survivors, ratepayers, utilities, insurers, and taxpayers. The first panel featured wildfire survivors William Abrams and Joy Chen, who described long delays in compensation, housing insecurity, and what they viewed as a system that protects utility shareholders more than victims. They urged greater transparency, clearer accountability for utility spending and safety performance, faster and fuller compensation for survivors, and reforms such as independent audits and better alignment of utility incentives with wildfire prevention and restitution. The second panel began with Tom Welsh of the California Earthquake Authority, who explained that the SB 254 report was intended as a broad inventory of policy pathways rather than recommendations. He described the report’s process, including stakeholder submissions, workstreams, and a convergence process, and outlined the current wildfire fund structure: utilities remain liable, the fund reimburses eligible claims after a covered wildfire, and the CPUC later determines prudency and possible reimbursement back to the fund. RAND’s Lloyd Dixon summarized compensation data, saying utilities paid about $38 billion between 2017 and 2024, with major shares going to injured parties, insurers, and public entities, while litigation costs and survivors’ own losses remain substantial. He noted that legal fees and delays reduce the amount survivors ultimately receive. Utility and public-interest witnesses offered differing views on the report’s pathways. PG&E’s Tyson Smith said the report shows inaction is the worst outcome and argued for community wildfire risk reduction, equitable allocation of catastrophe costs, and state-led resilience tools. LADWP’s Fernando Valero emphasized the vulnerability of municipal utilities and cities, and supported inverse condemnation reform, a state-sponsored liability insurance framework, damages and subrogation limits, and stronger insurance access. Consumer Attorneys of California’s John Fisk argued that IOU-caused fires are not natural disasters but the result of negligence and sometimes criminal conduct, and opposed reducing utility liability while supporting stronger oversight and audits. The Public Advocates Office’s Nathaniel Skinner focused on affordability, saying ratepayers already bear large and growing wildfire costs and warning against shifting more costs onto bills without measurable risk reduction and tighter accountability. Committee members then began questioning witnesses about what counts as measurable mitigation, how to define full and fair compensation, and how any fast-pay process should work.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a messy process, but there does seem to be processes in current statute to deal with all of the
• And it has been a messy process all the way from the beginning.
• It's a different process. It's just which process is more efficient is my concern. Yep, I get that.
• There's no online process, but I know we're working on that.
• It is a really important process.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee opened with roll call and a review of special-session procedure: bills would be heard in filing order, with related school-lunch bills grouped together, and any bill advancing would require a motion, second, and majority vote to be introduced. Members also discussed that the committee was functioning much like a delayed-bills committee, with final referral to either Appropriations or Policy depending on the bill’s fiscal impact. The first major proposal was Senator Schibley’s bill to create a narrow, statewide Bank of North Dakota bridge-loan program for struggling nonprofit medical facilities, prompted by Jacobson Memorial Hospital’s financial crisis. He argued the hospital and surrounding EMS services could close without short-term help, while committee members questioned the added language, the population cap, the $10 million fund with $5 million per applicant limit, and whether the program could open the door to future requests. Representative Headland then presented two cleanup bills from the prior property-tax session: one to fix notice and tax-certification issues for local taxing districts, and another to correct how the primary residence credit is applied so taxpayers receive the full benefit rather than counties retaining part of the reimbursement. Members asked about township hearing timing, the estimated $10–15 million annual impact, and whether the credit issue could be fixed retroactively; Headland said the bill was intended to correct the problem going forward. Three school-lunch bills drew extensive discussion. Representative Vetter proposed a small administrative appropriation to add an FTE to help eligible families enroll in the existing free/reduced lunch program, saying the goal was to ensure needy children are signed up and that the state should not subsidize meals for wealthy families. Representative Nathe offered a broader bill mirroring the pending initiated measure but placing the program in statute instead of the Constitution, moving implementation up a year, and funding it with a one-time $65 million from the strategic investment fund; he said this would preserve legislative flexibility and avoid constitutional entrenchment. Representative Dressler proposed raising the state-funded eligibility threshold from 225% to 300% of poverty, arguing it would expand access while still preserving federal reimbursements and encouraging better enrollment systems. Members debated costs, future budget pressure, whether the bills set a precedent for responding to ballot measures, and whether the program should include breakfast and other operational details. Other proposals included Senator Powers’ bill to create a hyperbaric oxygen board and support rural access to hyperbaric chambers for wounds, concussions, PTSD, and other conditions; Representative Tolman’s reporting-requirements bill to force new or expanded programs to justify purpose, alternatives, evaluation methods, and full implementation costs; Representative Frelich’s bill addressing the ongoing redistricting litigation and what happens if the Supreme Court or lower courts alter the current map; and a bill requested by the Public Service Commission and ITD for FERC litigation support and ADA website/document compliance. The committee also heard a rural-health eligibility bill from Representative Twait aimed at steering federal rural health dollars toward rural providers, with questions focused on whether the mileage limits would exclude some communities. One Holocaust education item was deferred until the sponsor could be located.

Transcript Highlights:

• As a region, we've done, or we're going through the process.
• It says state review process and regulations.
• And talking with them, they have their processes, their internal processes.
• So the legislature, in the process we end, and it is...
• Now let's talk about the state review processes.

Summary: The meeting began with introductions from members of the Joint Transportation Committee and a presentation from the Association of Washington Cities and the public works directors of Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, and West Richland. The cities described the Quad Cities region as one of the fastest-growing in the state and outlined shared transportation priorities that align with the committee’s focus on safety, multimodal access, climate resilience, and economic development. They emphasized Vision Zero efforts, complete streets, ADA accessibility, regional trail and bike/pedestrian planning, and coordinated long-range transportation and land-use planning to manage growth. The city officials also discussed major funding and delivery challenges, including rising construction costs, project phasing, pavement preservation, right-of-way acquisition, and delays caused by state and federal permitting and review processes. They highlighted regional cooperation through the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, Good Roads, and local funding tools such as impact fees, transportation benefit districts, REET, tax increment financing, and state and federal grants. Specific projects discussed included Richland’s SR 240/Aaron Drive complete streets project and downtown connectivity work, Kennewick’s Columbia Center Boulevard improvements and rail study, Pasco’s Court/Road 68, Sylvester Street corridor, I-182 bridge/interchange work, and a new north-south bridge study, and West Richland’s SR 224 Red Mountain corridor project, which officials said was awarded under budget and is scheduled to begin construction. Committee members asked questions about sidewalk connections to schools, state-agency right-of-way timelines, apprenticeship utilization, contractor selection, and whether complete streets requirements add burdens to pavement preservation projects. The city officials said new development is generally meeting sidewalk standards, but older infill areas remain a gap; that state right-of-way transactions can take much longer than expected; that apprenticeship requirements are common but harder for smaller contractors and local labor markets; and that low-bid contracting leaves little room to screen for performance history. They also said complete streets requirements are usually manageable on major projects but can be difficult to absorb in smaller preservation work. The committee then shifted to a JTC-funded study on transit-oriented development, presented by Urban Institute researcher Yona Freemark. The study examined TOD conditions in 33 cities in Snohomish, King, Pierce, Clark, and Spokane counties near rail and bus rapid transit stations. Freemark said Washington’s housing affordability crisis is severe, especially near transit, and found that high-cost cities have seen more development near stations but also signs of gentrification and loss of affordable housing, while lower-cost cities have had less development and worsening affordability relative to income. He identified barriers including high debt costs, land costs, infrastructure costs, zoning and parking rules, and limited subsidies for affordable housing. He recommended more neighborhood infrastructure funding near stations, stronger affordable housing investment, and better use of public land, noting that HB 1491 and related legislation are already changing some local requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• The truth in taxation process requires.
• Several of the study processes overlap.
• What, if any, is your role in that process?
• So it's a nerve-wracking process for us.
• It has been two distinct separate processes, the appraisal process to determine the proper size of. of

Keywords: 1184, house, all