Video & Transcript Research : 'Alabama Code Title 22'

Page 167 of 500
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Public Education May 20th, 2025

Public Education

Transcript Highlights:
  • It can be found in the Education Code, Chapter 11, Section 169.
  • Safety Code, Code of Federal Regulations, and various statutes that pertain to where parents are found
  • , the Prayer Rights Chapter, and the Texas Education Code.
  • Both of these pieces of code or law direct us to teach.
  • to teach this post the passage of the new law SB 22.
AL

Alabama 2026 1st Special Session

Alabama House Education Policy Committee Feb 18th, 2026

Education Policy

Transcript Highlights:
  • /c><00:22:03.840> bit,<00:22:04.159> Jonathan<00:22:04.640> Davis,<00:22:05.200>
  • /c><00:22:30.159> it<00:22:30.320> would<00:22:30.480> be<00:22:30.559> on
  • :22:34.960> that<00:22:35.200> would<00:22:35.360> actually<00:22:35.600> tell
  • 22:39.679> this<00:22:39.840> time,<00:22:40.080> I'm<00:22:40.320> happy
  • Alabama. Alabama.
Keywords: 1136, house, all
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • And that has been<00:22:04.640> a<00:22:04.799> funding<00:22:05.039> and<00:22:
  • >> So,<00:22:10.400> using<00:22:10.640> your<00:22:10.799> analogy,<00:22
  • c><00:22:12.480> was<00:22:12.880> thinking<00:22:13.200> in<00:22:13.360> my
  • >> And<00:22:56.159> how<00:22:56.400> many<00:22:56.480> of<00:22:56.640>
  • those<00:22:56.880> a<00:22:57.039> year<00:22:57.200> do<00:22:57.840><
Summary: The subcommittee heard a budget overview from the Kentucky Court of Justice focused on mandated services and several growth items in the judicial branch budget. Court officials said the requests were driven by legal and contractual obligations, including higher contractor rates for court interpreters and IT support, annual software-as-a-service costs, and upgrades to the court’s audiovisual record system (JAVS). They also discussed local facilities needs tied to Jefferson County lease space and the Boyle County Courthouse, though the bulk of the presentation centered on the court’s technology and service-delivery costs. Members asked detailed questions about interpreter services, including whether services are provided in person, by phone, or by Zoom, and whether Kentucky could train and certify more local interpreters instead of relying on contractors from around the country. Court officials said the certification process is rigorous, that the branch is working with the National Center for State Courts on an apprenticeship program, and that they believe Kentucky may have flexibility to develop state-level certification if it meets court needs. They also said they are exploring technology and AI tools for translation, but have not found a solution that reliably handles complex courtroom context. Representative Sharp asked whether cases had been delayed for lack of interpreters; officials said they could provide aggregated data later. The court also described its major IT modernization effort, including a statewide case management system, e-filing, and maintenance of many legacy applications. Officials said contractor rates need to be raised to compete for skilled labor during the implementation phase, but that those costs should decline once the new systems are fully built and only maintained. They explained that part of the request covers three SaaS initiatives: ongoing subscription costs for existing systems, annual fees for the CaseWorks system used in pretrial and specialty courts after federal grant funding ends, and adoption of DocuSign to streamline invoicing, procurement, and contract execution. In response to questions from Representative KC Carney, they said cybersecurity is taken seriously, that they recently conducted a tabletop exercise, and that some risk shifts to cloud vendors under contract, though no separate cybersecurity line item was included. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on the JAVS audiovisual court-record system. Court officials said not all courtrooms are on the same version, and they want funding to bring all locations up to the current version and prepare for version 9, which they said would standardize the system statewide and support the official court record. When asked about costs, they said each upgrade can cost about $70,000 to $80,000 per system, that they aim to upgrade about 50 per year, and that the request reflects the need to keep pace with a four-year refresh cycle. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • 56.640> And<00:40:56.880> makes The staff suggested amendment updates and corrects the titles
Summary: The subcommittee approved the minutes from the previous meeting and then took up several regulations. The first was a Department of Veterans Affairs regulation, with a staff amendment, to allow nurse practitioners to apply for the Veterans Affairs nurse loan repayment program year-round and to make technical drafting changes. The committee heard from the Office of Kentucky Veteran Centers, then adopted the staff amendment and approved the regulation without objection. The main item of the meeting was the Board of Optometric Examiners’ proposed amendment to 201 KAR 5:010, which would allow applicants to use the Optometry Examining Board of Canada written exam in place of part one of the National Board of Examiners in Optometry exam for licensure. The board said the change would improve access to care, provide an additional pathway for Canadian-trained candidates, and still require applicants to pass the remaining national board parts. Opponents, including NBEO officials, ARBO, Pearson VUE, and several optometrists, argued the Canadian exam is not equivalent, does not test the same biomedical science content, is not validated for U.S. scope of practice, and raises concerns about test security, transparency, and portability across states. They urged the committee to find the amendment deficient or vote no. Committee members questioned both sides about prior communication with the board, whether Kentucky would be the first state to adopt such a change, the rationale for the proposal, and the cost difference between the exams. Supporters said the board had received some written comments and one phone call, and that the proposal was driven by access concerns and the presence of Canadian students. Opponents said they had not had direct discussions with the Kentucky board before the hearing. No final vote on the optometry regulation is reflected in the transcript excerpt, but the committee heard extensive testimony and rebuttal before moving on.