Transcript Highlights:

• What's ethical?
• What's<00:42:18.040> ethical? What's ethical? What's ethical?
• explicitly requiring the state ethics explicitly requiring the state ethics commission<01:03:09.240
• the disclosure form from the Ethics the disclosure form from the Ethics Commission<01:05:29.960>
• lessen the burden on the State Ethics lessen the burden on the State Ethics Commission<01:06:14.600

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• [Music] The Minnesota Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct,
• Um, we're back to wrap up on the second item on our agenda today related to the ethics complaint filed
• We're on 56.1 and 56.3, which state members must adhere to the highest standard of ethical conduct as
• Senator Matthews moves that the subcommittee on ethical conduct find a violation of Senate Rule 56.3
• Conduct find a Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct find a violation<00:09:55.440> of<00:09:55.680

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is not talking about ethical violations, that's already covered.
• The point is, if you look at their rules of ethics, if you look at what they swear to, they swear.
• This provision on page 3, this is not about ethics violations.
• Is that an ethical violation? Nope. Is it a criminal violation? Nope. What is it?
• This practice raises serious ethical questions about how we are addressing homelessness.

Bills: SB6, SB30, SB13, SB2878, SB2501, SB66, SB268, SB331, SB618, SB414, SB1394, SB2425, SB898, SB993, SB442, SB735, SB784, SB2538, SB1919, SB1013, SB2215, SB2322, SB626, SB570, SB747, SB2183, SB673, SB1015, SB1447, SB1370, SB1784, SB1897, SB2873, SB2891, SB2933, SB2540, SB2681, SB2695, SB1965, SB2203, SB872, SB875, SB1030, SB1277, SB1730, SB1681, SB1152, SB2969, SB2747, SB2705, SB2541, SB1708, SB2080, SB2721, SB1986, SB2392, SB2539, SB2857, SB2799, SB2785, SB2782, SB1531, SB1927, SB1263, SB1098, SB835, SB3070, SB22, SJR27, SB25, SB7, SB552, SB1612, SJR87, SJR1, SB6, SB30, SB13, SB2878, SB57, SB127, SB293, SB441, SB3059, SB512, SB241, SB1718, SB140, SB2055, SB2075, SB2018, SB1534, SB1567, SB785, SB1233, SB1580, SB1663, SB413, SB447, SB519, SB467, SB1579, SB1191, SB1021, SB1838, SB2807, SB2835, SB546, SB2121, SB2167, SB2035, SB2024, SB1032, SB1049, SB1266, SB1400, SB1302, SB401, SB1596, SB1281, SB1242, SB1343, SB310, SB1346, SB2753, SB2703, SB2221, SB1719, SB2177, SB800, SB790, SB748, SB571, SB1957, SB1923, SB1896, SB1760, SB1335, SB2368, SB2477, SB2587, SB2972, SB2986, SB2965, SB1563, SB1467, SB1164, SB1137, SB614, SB705, SB961, SB918, SB955, SB869, SB850, SB863, SB1610, SB1055, SB2206, SB457, SB2337, SB1362, SB926, SB1494, SB251, SB456, SB500, SB1307, SB2615, SB2995, SB2321, SB973, SB974, SB865, SB506, SB781, SB1522, SB1558, SB510, SB667, SB763, SB2073, SB1858, SB1660, SB505, SB2900, SB1433, SB1540, SB1964, SB1300, SB1644, SB2217, SB2373, SB2431, SB1758, SB2480, SB3039, SB3047, SB3073, SB2920, SB2781, SB826, SB766, SB2460, SB527, SB1946, SB2885, SB1243, SB2610, SB2595, SB857, SB2501, SB66, SB268, SB331, SB618, SB414, SB1394, SB2425, SB898, SB993, SB442, SB735, SB784, SB2538, SB1919, SB1013, SB2215, SB2322, SB626, SB570, SB747, SB2183, SB673, SB1015, SB1447, SB1370, SB1784, SB1897, SB2873, SB2891, SB2933, SB2540, SB2681, SB2695, SB1965, SB2203, SB872, SB875, SB1030, SB1277, SB1730, SB1681, SB1152, SB2969, SB2747, SB2705, SB2541, SB1708, SB2080, SB2721, SB1986, SB2392, SB2539, SB2857, SB2799, SB2785, SB2782, SB1531, SB1927, SB1263, SB1098, SCR9, HB5560, HB762, HB 107, HB 114, HB138, HB4386, HB2495, HB581, HB3348, HB5323, HB1584, HB4341, HB6, HB171, HB143, HB449, HB3486, HB4263, HB5246, HB2, HB2011, SB17, SB21

Keywords: electric power, interconnection, utilities, ERCOT, large load customers, water supply, sewer service, demand management, school libraries, library advisory councils, parental rights, library materials, educational content, challenging materials, judicial branch, court security, expunction, pretrial intervention, youth diversion, record retention

Transcript Highlights:

• The ethics advisors had received a bunch of different questions about whether what the member wanted
• And the board encourages members to continue to ask ethics advisors.
• It encourages members to continue to ask ethics advisors if it's a good idea to write a letter.
• I think this advisory, putting it all in one place, really helps, will help the ethics advisors.
• I think this advisory, putting it all in one place, really helps, will help the ethics advisors.

Summary: The board approved the October 15 meeting minutes and then reviewed three employment disclosure forms involving staff or spouses employed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board and the Department of Corrections. The disclosures were approved unanimously. The board also adopted a proposed rule change to conform board rules to a prior statutory amendment that separated fines from costs. Members then discussed a draft advisory opinion interpreting the phrase “letter of recommendation” under the ethics statute. The draft would read the term broadly, allow legislators to decide when to write such letters when requested by a constituent, and reaffirm that it remains appropriate to use state resources for job references or scholarships for individuals the legislator has supervised or worked closely with at the legislature, as well as for certain gubernatorial appointments. Members generally supported the draft, but asked for possible clarification of the phrase “work closely with,” and approved the opinion as drafted with that caveat. The board also reviewed proposed future meeting dates, noting a concern that January 19 falls on Martin Luther King Jr. Day and may need to be changed. No final action was taken on the dates during the public portion. The meeting then moved toward executive session after adjourning the public portion.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:32.480> hotlines,<00:03:33.440> legal legal education, ethics hotlines, legal
• obligations to their clients, to the citizens of Kentucky, and helping lawyers act in an ethical and
• <00:16:07.759> So,<00:16:08.720> in ethical and responsible manner.
• So, in ethical and responsible manner.
• The speaker said the ethics hotline is included as well.

Keywords: Call to Order 00:00 Roll Call 00:02 HB 526 Discussion 01:12 HB 526 Vote 37:51 HB 424 Discussion 41:41 HB 424 Vote 44:40 HB 459 Discussion 45:57 HB 459 Vote 47:26 Adjournment 48:21, 958, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 526, while House Bill 254 was removed from the agenda at the sponsor’s request. HB 526 would make bar membership and dues voluntary for Kentucky attorneys, and the sponsor argued it protects constitutional rights, prevents compelled association, and would not stop the Kentucky Supreme Court or Kentucky Bar Association from offering services such as CLE, ethics support, and lawyer assistance programs. He also argued Kentucky lawyers should not be forced to fund speech or activities they may disagree with, and urged passage of the bill. Representatives of the Kentucky Bar Association, including its president and the chair of the Young Lawyers Division, opposed the bill. They said the KBA is an arm of the Supreme Court rather than a private association, and that mandatory dues support nonpolitical services such as free continuing legal education, legal research, the Kentucky Lawyers Assistance Program, ethics guidance, mentorship, disaster relief work, and the Legal Food Frenzy. They warned that changing to a voluntary system would reduce infrastructure, increase costs for lawyers, and potentially shift more regulatory and service burdens to the Supreme Court. Members questioned whether the bill would actually prevent the KBA from continuing its programs and asked about other states’ bar structures. The sponsor and supporters pointed to Indiana and other states with voluntary bar membership, while KBA witnesses said Kentucky’s current system is efficient and constitutional and that many services are not truly free but are funded through dues. The discussion became heated at points over whether KBA testimony itself constituted political speech, and the chair intervened to keep the meeting moving. The transcript ends during member questions, with no final vote on HB 526 shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• LADIES AND GENTLEMEN UNDER TAB ONE WE WILL TAKE UP CS FOR SP 3488 ETHICS BY SENATOR GAETZ.
• THE FIRST MAKES IT A VIOLATION OF SECTION 112 THE FLORIDA CODE OF ETHICS.
• CHAIRMAN DEALS WITH FINES IMPOSED BY THE COMMISSION ON ETHICS FOR ANY VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CODE OF
• ETHICS.
• WE HAVE KERRY STILLMAN REPRESENTATIVE FOR FLORIDA COMMISSION ON ETHICS WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• [Music] The Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct will come to order. We were in a brief recess.
• was cited in the ethics was cited in the ethics complaint<00:10:17.279> they<00:10:17.440
• period not an ellipsis in the ethics period not an ellipsis in the ethics complaint<00:10:40.240
• As such, I respectfully request that this ethics complaint against me is dismissed.
• With that being said, the Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct is adjourned. [Music] [Music] and

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They want ethical integrity.
• They want ethical integrity. They right. They want ethical integrity.
• And without that ethical involved?
• , biases to provide ethical, biases to provide ethical, evidence-based<01:29:13.280> care,
• <01:37:24.040> really AMA code of ethics really AMA code of ethics really lays<01:37:26.280

Keywords: 00:00:00 Call to Order/Roll Call 00:01:10 Discussion of 25RS HB 414 00:44:26 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 414 00:50:25 Discussion of 25RS SB 27 00:53:44 Roll Call Vote on 25RS SB 27 00:55:49 Discussion of 25RS SB 93 00:57:57 Roll Call Vote on 25RS SB 93 00:59:29 Discussion of 25RS SB 132 01:37:39 Roll Call Vote on 25RS SB 132 01:40:55 Discussion of 25RS SB 153 01:42:05 Roll Call Vote on 25RS SB 153 01:43:46 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The Health Services Committee met with a quorum and took up House Bill 414 with a committee substitute. The bill, described by sponsors and supporters as a continuation of prior maternal-health legislation, was framed as a clarification of medical standards and an effort to improve care for women and families facing complicated pregnancies. Representative Tate, Representative Nemes, Adair Wushar of Kentucky Right to Life, and Dr. Jeff Goldberg of ACOG Kentucky all testified in support, saying the substitute was developed collaboratively to reduce confusion in the law and help physicians provide evidence-based care without fear of criminal penalties. Supporters said the committee substitute was intended to define what is not an abortion under Kentucky law and to spell out medical treatments for conditions such as miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, molar pregnancy, sepsis, hemorrhage, preeclampsia, premature rupture of membranes, and fetal demise. Dr. Goldberg said current statutes contain significant ambiguity and have created unintended barriers to treating pregnancy complications, including emergency situations, and he gave examples of patients who were delayed or harmed because physicians were uncertain about what the law allowed. Representative Nemes said the measure was the result of unusual cooperation among groups that do not usually agree and described it as a first step toward fixing a discrete problem. Representative Wilner raised concerns that the language could effectively require a patient to be in severe distress before treatment is clearly permitted and that it was too prescriptive about how physicians should manage miscarriages. In response, Dr. Goldberg and the sponsors said the substitute was not perfect, was meant as a short-term solution, and was designed to give doctors more confidence in providing routine, medically necessary care for pregnancy complications. The transcript indicates the committee substitute was adopted, but no final vote on the bill itself is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Let's call this public portion of our Legislative Ethics Board to order. Is TVW already signed in?
• RCW 42.52.187(1) basically says it's not a violation of the Ethics Act for a legislator to send or email
• It says it's not a violation of the Ethics Act for a legislator to send or email a letter of recommendation
• What we ethics advisors have said is that wanting to write a letter of recommendation that somebody be
• But I don’t think that it’s an ethical issue.

Summary: The Legislative Ethics Board approved the minutes from its September 8, 2025 meeting and reported that there were no employment disclosure forms. The board then discussed whether RCW 42.52.187(1) permits legislators to write letters of recommendation in a broader range of situations, including citizenship, clemency/pardon, immigration waivers, scholarships, and appointments. Members generally favored a broad reading for constituent-requested letters, while staff noted their existing advice had been narrower and suggested drafting an advisory opinion to clarify the definition and scope of “letter of recommendation.” The board also considered whether the statute’s reference to commemorations or celebrations of “persons who are not current legislators” allows use of state resources to recognize entities such as the Mariners or Seahawks. Members discussed whether “person” includes organizations under the Ethics Act’s definition, and the consensus leaned toward a plain-language reading that would allow posts about teams and other non-legislator entities, though some members suggested the language may need cleanup in the future. A third item addressed a previously retired advisory opinion concerning legislators who are attorneys and represent clients before state agencies. Staff proposed republishing or updating the opinion with current citations, but several members expressed concern that the old opinion could be read too narrowly or as implying legislators cannot do outside legal work involving agencies. The board agreed the issue needed more refinement and deferred further action to a future meeting. There was no public testimony beyond a brief check-in from Jerry Cornfield, and the meeting adjourned after a motion and second.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:27:03.520> administrative 411 relating to ethics administrative 411 relating to ethics
• measure we have the Hawaii state ethics measure we have the Hawaii state ethics Commission<00:27
• um there is a provision in the ethics um there is a provision in the ethics code<00:31:38.480>
• comments to this bill and as the ethics comments to this bill and as the ethics commission<00:34
• that arose is that both the ethics that arose is that both the ethics commission<00:38:24.800>

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs held its first hearing of the 33rd Legislature and heard several measures, beginning with HB 131, which would allow agencies to disclose government records to researchers for certain purposes and direct the Office of Information Practices to adopt uniform rules. OIP supported the bill, saying it would help researchers access government records, while DLNR questioned whether the bill was necessary, raised concerns about costs and exemptions, and suggested a definition change regarding media. The Public First Law Center and other supporters said the bill would not remove existing exemptions or create new disclosure requirements, but would simply authorize rulemaking to create a clearer process for research access. Common Cause Hawaiʻi raised concern about including news media in the measure. The chair emphasized that the rulemaking process would allow agencies and the public to work through details, and the committee moved on without a recorded vote in the transcript. The committee then heard HB 411, which would create uniform administrative penalty procedures under the state ethics code and lobbyist law, and HB 412, which would expand lobbying definitions to cover certain communications with high-level executive officials about procurement and make some contracts voidable if awarded through unethical lobbying. The Ethics Commission supported HB 411 as an efficiency measure that would streamline the charge process without changing substantive rights, while HB 412 was described as a narrow transparency measure modeled on other states. The State Procurement Office warned that voiding contracts could cause delays, warranty issues, third-party complications, and higher reprocurement costs. The Ethics Commission responded that any contract revocation would be at the Attorney General’s discretion and likely reserved for egregious cases, and that the threat of voiding a contract would help deter noncompliance. The committee also heard HB 413, which clarifies that lobbyist campaign contribution prohibitions apply during periods when both houses of the Legislature are in session; the Ethics Commission and Campaign Spending Commission both supported the bill and the Ethics Commission requested amendments to clarify jurisdiction between state and county lobbyist enforcement. Finally, the committee took up HB 149, which would require domestic and foreign corporations to report independent expenditures and political contributions to shareholders. The only testimony noted in the transcript was written comments from Matson, which said the requirement would be expensive and cumbersome and that the information is already publicly available through existing campaign finance reporting websites. No votes or final committee actions on the bills were recorded in the provided transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's many risks when it comes to morality and when it comes to ethics.
• This really places the ethical and responsible use of AI tools center stage.
• And I'd also like to discuss the intervention, so in the form of the ethics training.
• Taught me the ethics, how to put my community first.
• Integrity can be broken down to agency, character, ethics, and morality.

Summary: The meeting opened with a report on annual solvency certification for institutions of higher education, which required no action and was to be distributed later. The main presentation focused on artificial intelligence in K-12 and higher education, delivered by students from Arkansas State University, the University of Central Arkansas, and Valley View High School. They argued that AI is becoming central to education and the workforce, especially as Arkansas adds major data center investments, and said students should be taught to use AI responsibly so they can compete for jobs, improve internships, and keep talent in-state. They also emphasized concerns about academic integrity, cybercrime, and the need for ethics training and district-level guidance. The presenters shared survey findings from educators in several Arkansas districts, saying most teachers support teaching responsible AI use, believe students without access to AI will be disadvantaged, and want training and district-level management. They described existing AI uses at Arkansas colleges, including AI tutors, AI-generated practice exams, homework feedback tools, and classroom applications in business, climate science, and urban forestry. They also proposed an AI library built on the state’s Access Act infrastructure so K-12 and college students could access shared AI tools and resources across Arkansas. Committee members asked about student attitudes, classroom concerns, and whether AI could help standardize course materials and objectives across institutions. The presenters said reactions among students are mixed, with arts students especially worried about copyright and originality, but that many recognize AI’s real-world value. A UCA representative added that faculty training, ethics discussions, and academic dishonesty guidance are already underway there. The chair thanked the students, noted their work on related research projects, and then moved to a second presentation from Pine Bluff community leaders. The Pine Bluff group described community-based school support efforts, including the Pastors on Patrol program, mentoring, anti-bullying and nonviolence training, drug and vaping education, leadership clubs, and a youth diversion effort for students at risk of detention. They said their work is aimed at improving school climate, encouraging citizenship and scholarship, and reducing negative behavior. Members praised the group’s efforts and asked about expanding the programs to other districts; the presenters said their model and curriculum can be shared and adapted. The meeting ended after the chair thanked both groups and adjourned with no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Florida Commission on Ethics, uh... Mr.
• complaint filed against you, or if you are filing an ethics complaint.
• You have an ethics complaint filed against you, or if you are filing an ethics complaint.
• that then go from the Ethics Commission to DOAH, and that seems to be unfair to the complainant and
• of violating the Florida Code of Ethics, not a small thing.

Summary: The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee heard a presentation from Representative Esposito on a proposal to strengthen oversight of agency rulemaking under Chapter 120. The bill would require cost-benefit analysis at the front end and after implementation, create an eight-year sunset and review process for rules, and require express legislative authority for agency rulemaking. Members questioned the lack of concrete examples of burdensome rules, the effect on already slow rulemaking, the choice of an eight-year sunset, and the bill’s origin; Esposito said she was working with stakeholders and cited her chamber-of-commerce background and research with the Cicero Institute. No vote was taken on the bill itself. Staff then reported on legislatively mandated rulemaking from 2023 and 2024, noting that most required rules had been adopted, proposed, noticed, or scheduled, with a few agencies still outstanding. The Department of Financial Services explained a delayed notice of rule development for the MySafe Florida Home condominium pilot program as an oversight that has since been corrected, and the Department of Education said it did not proceed with rulemaking for the Fostering Prosperity grants because the program received no funding in the 2025 budget. The Department of Health described delayed rulemaking for the sickle cell disease and trait registry, saying the registry and opt-out forms were being implemented and that notices of rule development had now been filed. Members pressed the department on why rules took so long and discussed the need for statutory deadlines. The Department of Children and Families reported on two 2023 human-trafficking-related rules: signage requirements for residential treatment facilities and children’s safe homes, and a new certification process for adult safe homes. DCF said the signage rule is now moving forward and the adult safe home certification rule has been submitted for final review after workshops and stakeholder feedback. Senators questioned the lengthy timeline and the lack of oversight during the interim, while the chair emphasized the need for time-certain deadlines in legislation and for JAPAC oversight hearings. The committee also considered staff-proposed amendments to Chapter 120 addressing emergency rules pending legislative ratification and the process for initiating ratification, including a one-year limit and notice to JAPAC. After discussion, the committee voted to forward the proposed amendments to the Senate President and House Speaker. Finally, members discussed a proposed amendment to the administrative law judge appointment and retention process under Section 120.65. DOAH’s interim director opposed the change, saying ALJs and workers’ compensation judges have different functions and warning against shifting appointment power to cabinet officers whose agencies appear before DOAH. Members raised concerns about timeliness, consistency, and accountability in DOAH decisions. The committee voted to forward this proposal as well, with Senator Smith voting no on that motion.

Transcript Highlights:

• The code of ethics is not.
• foul of the professional code of ethics foul of the professional code of ethics is<01:06:47.440>
• The code of ethics is not. actionable. The code of ethics is not.
• that point that a code of ethics that point that a code of ethics violation<01:07:58.559> doesn't
• <01:09:59.760> is my understanding is code of ethics is my understanding is code of ethics

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• who serves on the Ethics person who serves on the Ethics Commission<00:25:15.679> is<00:25:15.800
• I do have concerns over the Ethics Commission portion.
• <00:26:45.120> When over the Ethics Commission portion.
• When over the Ethics Commission portion.
• their names and so making the Ethics their names and so making the Ethics Commission<00:26:58.200

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:10 Attendance Roll Call: 00:19 HB 10 Discussion: 02:19 HB 10 Vote: 06:24 HB 139 Discussion: 08:23 HB 139 Vote: 19:50 HB 607 Discussion: 21:29 HB 607 Vote: 25:55 HB 642 Discussion: 28:15 HB 642 Vote: 32:06 Adjournment: 33:25, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I call this meeting of the Committee on Ethics to order. We do have a quorum present.
• the ethics complaints that have been submitted to this committee.
• The document is labeled House Committee on Ethics Rules of Procedure.
• I would move the House Committee on Ethics Rules of Procedure, which will be identified as JD-H Ethics
• Rules. >> Chair Davids moves adoption of the House Committee on Ethics Rules of Procedure, JD-Ethics

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• bill clarifies that the Ethics bill clarifies that the Ethics Commission<01:07:59.040> will
• Vermont State Ethics Commission, a consultant for the Vermont State Ethics Commission, the Secretary
• from the Vermont State Ethics from the Vermont State Ethics Commission,<01:10:17.120> another
• office and the sec- and the State Ethics office and the sec- and the State Ethics Commission<01:
• constraints placed on the Ethics constraints placed on the Ethics Commission.<01:13:16.360> Um

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House opened with a devotional by former member Jason Lorber, who spoke humorously about the difference between asking questions and making statements, urging members to be direct and add value in deliberation. The chamber then took up several resolutions: JRH 11, urging Congress to enact the National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2025, was read and referred to the Committee on Commerce and Economic Development; JRS 51, setting weekend adjournment for May 1, 2026, was adopted in concurrence; and H.C.R. 261 was read, recognizing May 2026 as Older Americans Month and designating May 6, 2026 as Age Strong Vermont Day. Members also used announcements to welcome guests and highlight events, including the Age Strong Vermont initiative, a former member’s return, visitors connected to psychedelic medicine advocacy, an art social, fisheries and trout-in-the-classroom guests, a legislative intern, and a reminder about the May 16 NAMI walk. The House then took up Senate Bill 230, an omnibus labor measure relating to fair employment practices. The committee explanation described technical clarifications to parental and family leave for full-time teachers, expansion of protections for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, removal of outdated statutory language on mandatory retirement for tenured faculty, and clarification that elected and appointed municipal officers are not employees for minimum wage and overtime purposes. The main new policy in section 3B would prohibit non-compete agreements for non-exempt employees, with an exception for collective bargaining agreements, and would restrict certain non-compete and related clauses in health care provider contracts while preserving continuity of care and excluding non-clinical business support services. The committee reported extensive testimony and voted 11-0-0 to recommend the bill favorably with amendment; the House agreed to propose the amendment to the Senate and ordered third reading. The House also began consideration of Senate Bill 179, updating Vermont’s Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act. The committee presentation explained that the bill would eliminate the current 9-month deadline for disclaimers, reflecting changes in federal tax law and the much larger modern estate and gift tax exclusion, and would modernize the statute in several ways. Proposed changes include clearer rules for jointly held property, allowing pre-death disclaimers, authorizing trustees and parents in limited circumstances to disclaim on behalf of trusts or minor children, permitting disclaimers by proxy for infirm persons, clarifying partial disclaimers and entity disclaimers, improving delivery rules for non-real-estate property, and specifying that a disclaimer is not a transfer for transfer-tax purposes. The bill was described as a response to outdated law in light of an impending large intergenerational wealth transfer, and the House proceeded with second reading discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• ,<00:13:15.600> responsible academic skills, AI ethics, responsible academic skills, AI ethics
• and ethically. and ethically.
• <00:18:28.760> use statewide guidance for the ethical use statewide guidance for the ethical
• being used ethically and effectively. being used ethically and effectively.
• equitably and effectively and ethically. equitably and effectively and ethically.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Artificial Intelligence Task Force met and adopted the prior minutes before turning to AI in education. Jeff Gagne of the Southern Regional Education Board described SREB’s Commission on AI in Education, which has organized its work into committees on policy, K-12 instruction, postsecondary instruction, and skills development. He highlighted eight commission recommendations covering statewide AI networks, targeted guidance for different user groups, professional development, standards and curricula, local capacity assessments, risk management, procurement, and AI-ready workforce skills. He also emphasized that states need more specific guidance for students, teachers, faculty, administrators, and parents, and that training is essential because many educators have not been prepared to use AI in instruction. Gagne also summarized two recent SREB reports: one on AI-ready workforce skills and one on AI use in K-12 classrooms. The workforce report recommends embedding AI across standards, strengthening computer science and digital learning standards, collaborating with industry and workforce agencies, building AI competencies into training and upskilling, providing educator professional development, and monitoring readiness. He said the report identifies three skill areas: success skills, industry baseline skills, and technical skills. The classroom guidance report promotes responsible AI adoption, with four pillars focused on increasing cognitive demand, streamlining teaching and administrative work, supporting personalized learning, and developing ethical AI users. He also noted that the report includes an AI procurement tool for school districts. Members thanked Gagne for providing outside examples and resources. One member noted JCPS has an introductory AI professional development offering for educators. Gagne said Kentucky’s David Couch serves on the SREB commission and that the commission’s member list and reports are available on SREB’s website. The committee then heard from Travis Powell of the Council on Postsecondary Education, who said CPE had surveyed campuses and found that Kentucky institutions have broadly embraced AI in teaching, research, student services, and administrative operations. He said all institutions have AI-focused degrees, minors, or courses, and many are integrating AI into general education and across disciplines. Powell also said CPE is considering an AI consortium and that campuses are using AI in research partnerships and applied work, while continuing to focus on ethical and effective use.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's one piece of ethics.
• So that's one piece of ethics.
• So that's one piece of ethics.
• So that's one piece of ethics.
• So that's one piece of ethics.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The second request for information, which has been approved, will be sent to the ethics commission in
• It will make a similar request for all documents related to the petition and any proceedings the ethics
• :51.680> the that's been approved to send is to the that's been approved to send is to the ethics
• <00:01:54.320> It ethics commission in Bard County. It ethics commission in Bard County.
• and the um any proceedings the ethics and the um any proceedings the ethics commission<00:02:01.920

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The impeachment committee opened by announcing the voting members and alternates assigned to each of three impeachment petitions: jailer Eric Copus, Judge Stephanie Perllo, and Justice Pamela Goodwine. The chair also noted that he and Representative Neighbors had recused themselves from the Goodwine matter. The committee then outlined its next steps on the Copus petition, including requests for information to Ballard Fiscal Court, the county ethics commission, and the commonwealth’s attorney, with responses requested by January 30, 2026. For the Perllo petition, the committee agreed to send the petition to Judge Perllo and invite a response by February 6. For the Goodwine petition, the committee approved sending letters to the Kentucky Bar Association and the Judicial Conduct Commission seeking any complaints or findings related to the matter, and to the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance asking whether the named groups had spent money on any other Supreme Court justice in the past eight years. Responses to those requests were asked for by next Friday. After the committee completed its business, the chair asked whether there was anything else to take up. Hearing none, the impeachment committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• the original Senate Bill 5, the removal process language that went up to the governor had the state ethics
• She didn't want to add an additional process where anyone could go to the Ethics Commission and start
• ethics process now because, as I understand it's two things.
• I don't see other ones that give—oh, no, for the State Ethics Commission, we did too.
• I don't see other ones that give, oh, no, for the State Ethics Commission, we did too.

Bills: SB104, SJR3, SM3

Keywords: wildlife commission, removal procedures, malfeasance, appointed officials, governance, education reform, public education, state board of education, superintendent, chartering authority, constitutional amendment, policy setting, insects, insect workshop, insect identification, ecology, monitoring, management, pollinators, pollination