Transcript Highlights:

• When you talk about the case, the Title 10 case in the California situation, are you talking about the
• Trump case law? >> Yes. >> Okay.
• Trump case? >> A little bit.
• Trump case law? Newsome v. Trump case law? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay.
• <00:59:10.240> Trump<00:59:10.480> case? familiar with the Newsome v. Trump case?

Bills: SB3240

Keywords: defense, workforce development, local business, manufacturing, federal funding, economic resilience, 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several public safety-related measures and indicated at the outset that, because of short notice, the bills would likely be deferred to the later decision-making agenda. On SB 2645 relating to fire prevention, the bill would restructure the process for selecting the State Fire Marshal and make related changes to the Office of the State Fire Marshal. The Governor’s office, the State Fire Marshal’s office, the Hawaii State Fire Council, DLNR, Maui Fire Department, AIA Hawaii State Council, and others testified, with DLNR supporting most of the bill but opposing the provision changing the marshal’s nomination process to a governor appointee. In questions, members reviewed the relationship between the State Fire Council, the commission, and the marshal, and the Governor’s office clarified that it supported the overall intent but wanted the commission to remain the sole appointing entity. The bill was not voted on in the hearing. The committee then heard SB 3083 relating to protective orders, with support from the U.S. Defense State Liaison Office, the judiciary, the Hawaii National Guard, the Military and Community Relations Office, DBED, and the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Members focused on whether the draft reflected language worked out with the judiciary and whether the bill addressed a previously identified gap in implementation. The Military and Community Relations Office said it had worked with the judiciary on amendments and wanted to ensure the statute created a collaborative process with installation partners and law enforcement. The witness also said the draft appeared to reflect the agreed language, though he noted there were multiple bills moving and that technical amendments might still be needed. No action was taken during the hearing. SB 608 relating to veterans’ rights and benefits drew both support and opposition. Support came from the Hawaii Office of Veterans Services, Veterans Benefits Guide, Aloha Independent Living Hawaii, and individual veterans and service members, who argued the bill would improve access to claims assistance and provide choice and faster help for veterans. Opposition came from the VFW Department of Hawaii and the Veterans Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, which argued the bill should be amended to align with federal law, especially on accreditation and fee caps. Testimony and questioning centered on whether third-party claims assistance should be regulated, whether fee caps are preempted by federal law, and whether there was evidence of fraud tied to non-accredited representatives. Supporters said the bill would help veterans navigate a slow system, while opponents said accredited representatives are accountable and that the bill should be narrowed. The committee also heard SB 2054 relating to public safety, which would prohibit the Hawaii National Guard from deploying to assist federal troops, federal law enforcement, or other states’ National Guard units in Hawaii when the governor objects. The Hawaii National Guard opposed the bill, while the ACLU of Hawaii, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and numerous other organizations and individuals supported it, arguing it would protect civil liberties and prevent federal overreach. The hearing ended without a vote or final action on these measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• Supreme Court cases on this.
• Supreme Court cases on this.
• Supreme Court cases on this.
• I would just go back to the cases, not the cake cases, but the cases that talk about... representative
• I would just go back to the cases, not the cake cases, but the cases that talk about public...

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee met in executive session and first took up HB 148, which would allow classification by biological sex in limited circumstances such as multi-use bathrooms, certain athletic events, and involuntary commitment facilities. Supporters argued the bill was needed to protect privacy and safety, especially for women and girls, and said it was consistent with recent federal actions and prior legislation. Opponents said the bill lacked a clear definition of biological sex, could create confusion and discrimination, and was unnecessary because existing law and sports rules already address the issues raised. After debate, the committee voted 10-8 to recommend ought to pass on HB 148. The chair asked for a majority report and noted that a minority report would likely be filed. The committee then considered HB 254, a bill related to end-of-life medical decision-making. Supporters framed it as a matter of liberty and relief from suffering for terminally ill patients, while opponents raised moral objections, concerns about suicide being normalized, and worries about deceptive wording and death-certificate reporting. HB 254 was approved on an 11-7 vote for ought to pass, with the chair indicating he would write the majority report and Representative Perez the minority report. The committee then moved to HB 611 with Amendment 2025-0638, a replace-all amendment restoring prior law on recoupment of appointed-counsel costs from indigent criminal defendants and juveniles. The chair explained the amendment as reversing 2020 changes that had limited cost recovery, and the discussion focused on financial affidavits and the Office of Cost Containment’s ability to review indigency claims. The transcript cuts off before the committee vote on HB 611.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:23:07.279> there school tuition or in some cases there school tuition or in some cases
• <00:23:26.120> with regarding funding in some cases with regarding funding in some cases with
• Um, Senator Svin, Svin, Svin, so could this continue to be handled on a case-by-case basis, and um do
• Thank you for the question. case by case basis so thank you for the case by case basis so thank you for
• <01:07:46.079> on<01:07:46.240> it<01:07:46.839> for case on it for case on it for

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• requires prosecutors to make these determinations as they should under the law on disclosure on a case-by-case
• requires prosecutors to make these determinations as they should under the law on disclosure on a case-by-case
• requires prosecutors to make these determinations as they should under the law on disclosure on a case-by-case
• And I will be your chair for a few more serious case? Would have would that have serious case?
• to build uh enterprise level cases. to build uh enterprise level cases.

Bills: HF962, HF3541, HF2936, HF3762, HF2879

Keywords: Capitol security, public safety, emergency management, state buildings, law enforcement, corrections, legislative approval, rule-making, financial impact, jail regulations, expungement, firearm eligibility, criminal records, organized retail crime, retail theft, supply chain theft, theft enterprise, organized theft, cargo theft, shoplifting

Transcript Highlights:

• subject to possibly presenting a rebuttal case in this matter.
• Before we begin presenting our case, I believe that, ...our case, I believe that under the applicable
• Now you have the sum total of the state's case in front of you, and that case is inadequate.
• Attorney’s Office actually filed a case against this person.
• All right, so the board does not wish to present a rebuttal case.

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:

• trafficking reported in 2024, and again, those are just reported cases.
• Again, to fund vertical prosecution for human trafficking cases.
• According to data from the National Human Trafficking Hotline, there are almost 12,000 cases.
• trafficking reported in 2024, and again, those are just reported cases.
• able to actually work the case.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• At least in the case of state affairs...
• Galveston City case by the Fifth Circuit.
• Galveston City case by the Fifth Circuit.
• case, White v.
• Register, that brought us. ...was after the legendary case, the important case, White v.

Summary: The Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting held its first regional hearing, focused on South and Central Texas, including Bexar County, Travis County, and the Rio Grande Valley. After establishing a quorum, the committee adopted its rules on a 6-3 roll-call vote, with Senators Alvarado and Miles voting no. Chair Phil King explained the regional-hearing format, the use of 2020 census data, the online testimony process, and the availability of written comments and future hearings. Several members then gave opening remarks, with Republicans emphasizing public input and Democrats arguing the special session and mid-decade redistricting were unnecessary and aimed at minority districts. A major procedural issue arose over whether the committee should invite or subpoena the DOJ attorney who authored the July 7 letter that prompted the redistricting discussion. Senator Miles moved to subpoena the attorney; the motion was seconded but then set aside after the chair said the committee could not take formal action on a non-procedural matter during a regional hearing under the adopted rules. The chair said he would consult legal counsel about issuing an invitation, and members discussed the August 7 deadline referenced in the DOJ letter. The committee then moved on to public testimony. Witnesses, including Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia, law professor Ellen Katz, and Texas NAACP president Gary Bledsoe, argued that the DOJ letter misread the law and that the targeted districts were lawful opportunity or coalition districts. They said the Fifth Circuit’s Pettway decision was limited to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and did not declare coalition districts unconstitutional, and they cited Bartlett v. Strickland as warning against intentionally dismantling effective minority districts. Garcia and Bledsoe said the hearing was politically motivated and would harm Black and Latino representation; Katz said Texas would act illegally if it followed the DOJ letter’s instructions. Members asked questions about the legal status of coalition districts, the 2021 map-drawing process, and the difference between opportunity, coalition, and crossover districts. The hearing continued with additional public witnesses, including labor representative Emily Amps, who said workers and communities of color were being harmed by the proposed redistricting effort.

Transcript Highlights:

• How many cases do we still have open on COVID-19?
• How many cases do we still have open on COVID-19 complaints and open cases? Do you know?
• That's the only case still pending—is Dr. Bowden's?
• As you heard, there were two continuances that were asked for in that case.
• But I also had to submit my surgery case log for the last two years despite this.

Bills: SB331, SB883, SB926, SB1137, SB1138, SB1144, SB1151, SB1236, SB1270, SB1522, SB1869, SB2207, SB2422

Keywords: healthcare, cost disclosure, transparency, administrative penalties, health facility compliance, COVID-19, off-label use, prescription drugs, patient access, medical standards, insurance, physician ranking, incentives, fiduciary duty, health plan issuers, SB 1137, group home, assisted living, residential care, board and care

Summary: The committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 883, which would protect physicians’ ability to prescribe off-label medications and treatments, framed by the author as a “Right to Treat” measure tied to COVID-19 care. Supporters, including physicians and patient-choice advocates, said the bill would safeguard the doctor-patient relationship and prevent interference by boards, pharmacies, or hospitals. Several witnesses described using hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, budesonide, antibiotics, steroids, and monoclonal antibodies during the pandemic, and said they faced complaints, board scrutiny, or pharmacy refusals for those prescriptions. The bill was left pending after public testimony closed. The committee then took up Senate Bill 331, which would extend hospital price-transparency requirements to additional health care facilities such as freestanding ERs, urgent care and retail clinics, ambulatory surgical centers, outpatient clinics, and birthing centers. Proponents argued that broader disclosure of prices for shoppable services would help consumers compare costs and reduce surprise billing, while opponents from ambulatory surgery centers said the bill would impose costly compliance burdens on small providers and that insurers or the state already have much of the needed data. The bill was also left pending. Senate Bill 2422 would expunge Texas Medical Board records and impose reparations for disciplinary actions tied to COVID-era treatment decisions, including references to ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, budesonide, and masks. The author and supporters argued that doctors were unfairly targeted for trying to save patients and should be made whole; the Texas Medical Board representative said most pandemic complaints were dismissed, that actions generally involved broader issues such as privileges, documentation, or informed consent, and that no physician was disciplined solely for prescribing off-label COVID medications. The bill was left pending. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 2207, which would loosen Texas Medical Board rules on physicians advertising themselves as board certified, especially by reducing barriers tied to maintenance of certification requirements. Supporters said the current rule is overly restrictive, inconsistent, and costly, and that it drives physicians out of practice; they also said Texas is one of only a few states with such a rule. Witnesses described hospitals using the rule against physicians and said the change would improve transparency and competition. The bill remained pending after testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today, I'm going to give some case illustrations from four different topic areas.
• Today, I'm going to give some case illustrations from four different topic areas.
• Again, a case co-led by Massachusetts that was recently resolved.
• Now, this is a topic that Massachusetts is often not a plaintiff in immigration cases.
• I'll also display it at the end in case you have any questions and want to reach out.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Persons with Disabilities held its quarterly virtual/in-person meeting and approved the December minutes. The chair announced plans for the next “Meeting the Moment” community forum in Lowell on March 27, in partnership with MassAbility, focused on digital accessibility, education-to-employment transition, workforce supports, long-term services and supports, and health equity, along with a resource fair. The commission also began planning for its October National Disability Employment Awareness Month event and sought volunteers for a small planning group. The meeting featured an update from the Attorney General’s office on federal litigation affecting Massachusetts, including challenges to federal actions on higher education diversity data collection and DEI-related funding conditions, immigration/TPS for Haitians, NIH research grant disruptions, and the nonrenewal of mental health services grants for schools. The presenter said the state has helped protect more than $3 billion in federal funding and noted ongoing or pending appeals in several cases. Commissioners asked about possible impacts on disability-related DEI work and Medicaid; the AG’s office said guidance on DEIA/employment initiatives is available and that the state is closely monitoring federal Medicaid communications and coordinating with the governor’s office. Undersecretary of Labor Josh Cutler and apprenticeship liaison Amara Riemann presented on registered apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs, emphasizing paid, employer-driven pathways with classroom instruction and wage progression. They highlighted growth in nontraditional fields such as human services, IT, early education, biotech, and banking, and described Bridgewater State University’s Excel program for neurodivergent people and people with disabilities as a model that can lead from pre-apprenticeship to apprenticeship. Commissioners discussed expanding similar models through community colleges and disability-focused workforce pipelines. Subcommittee reports covered disability employment, long-term services and supports, and health equity. The employment subcommittee heard from CED on state disability employment initiatives and planned future presentations from the Lawrence Partnership for Transition to Employment and Veterans Affairs. The long-term services and supports subcommittee discussed MassHealth budget pressures, anticipated federal Medicaid changes, the personal care attendant working group, and an upcoming discussion on crisis standards of care. In commissioner announcements, members highlighted recent honors for several commissioners, updates on municipal digital accessibility grants, a June Medicaid summit, and other commission activities. No formal votes were taken beyond approval of the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• In some cases, those people didn't know that they were now enrolled in...
• In some cases, those people didn't know that they were now enrolled in.
• I don't know what you sue on if we make the case moot.
• I wasn't here when this bill, when the court case went through.
• I wasn't here when this bill, when the court case went through.

Bills: HB2408, HB2434, HB2725, HB2728, HB2729, HB2730, HB2731, HB2732, HB2733, SB1192, SB1398, SB1399, SB1494, SB1557, SB1813, SB1821

Keywords: nursing board, regulatory actions, disciplinary actions, expungement, healthcare professionalism, controlled substances, prescription monitoring, opioid crisis, healthcare regulations, patient safety, prescription drugs, opioids, healthcare, pain management, utilization controls, AHCCCS, Department of Economic Security, social services, welfare programs, vocational rehabilitation

Transcript Highlights:

• Ah, according to Illinois Brick versus Illinois in 1977 case.
• If this bill were passed, that would be the case. No, no, no, that's jurisprudence.
• Not, not as I understand the facts of that cases so far as I understand them and how they.
• And then who is the victim in that case, right? So the answer is no, we really don't.
• Um, but in that case currently we would really not have a named victim.

Transcript Highlights:

• Obviously, we can't go into any one particular case, but could you give us an idea of generally what
• When I was told it takes up to two years sometimes to get these cases completed...
• so that it doesn’t appear as if all cases take that long.
• And that includes those cases that take years because we’re waiting on that criminal adjudication.
• In most cases, probably the most common is going to be for septic tanks.

Summary: The Occupational Licensing Review Subcommittee met to review two occupational licensing reports: the Arkansas State Board of Nursing and the State Board of Registration for Professional Soil Classifiers. For nursing, board officials described the board’s history, scope, and licensure categories, saying it regulates about 72,000 nurses across RN, LPN, advanced practice, medication assistant, and dialysis technician-related roles. Members asked about workforce shortages, complaint volume, and the board’s finances. The board said Arkansas has enough licensed nurses overall but faces vacancy and distribution issues, receives about 2,200 complaints annually, and most serious complaints involve criminal backgrounds, fraud or misrepresentation, misappropriation, drug abuse, and criminal investigations. Officials also said they are looking at ways to improve efficiency in case handling, including better documentation and added help positions, and noted outreach efforts through nursing associations and the Arkansas Center for Nursing. For professional soil classifiers, Agriculture Department officials explained that the occupation was created in 1975 and now is administered by the Natural Resources Commission after the former board was abolished in 2023. They said the profession is small and specialized, with about 29 registered soil classifiers in Arkansas, and requires a four-year degree plus coursework in biological, earth, and soil sciences. Members asked whether the current number is sufficient, what the work involves, and how the licensing fund is used. Officials said the current number appears adequate, though demand could change with more nutrient management or related work, and that soil classifiers commonly assist with septic system design, perk testing, wetland determinations, and other soil-related projects. They also noted the program has a small reserve and may look at training, curriculum, testing, and administrative budget adjustments. Both reports were reviewed without objection, and no votes were taken. The next meeting was announced for February 19 at 1:30 p.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• And again, tell us if you have cases.
• or cases.
• So this map that's been put out by the USDA that shows where the cases are, and obviously the cases are
• In 1972, there were about 90,000 cases.
• I'm trying to keep them together just in case.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But there is, in some cases, some evidence that turnout can't You know, there is, in some cases, some
• I'm sure that that could be a case.
• It's not the case in the majority, and it is not the case most of the time.
• It's not the case in the majority, and it is not the case most of the time.
• That is no longer the case in California.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-12, H.503, a proposal to implement all-party state primaries for Massachusetts state and federal elections. The committee opened with procedural remarks explaining Article 48 requirements and then heard first from two subject-matter experts. Professor Costas Panagopoulos of Northeastern University testified that top-two primary systems in other states have produced mixed results: they may modestly increase primary turnout in some cases, but the research does not show a reliable reduction in polarization, and such systems can weaken party gatekeeping, increase strategic behavior, raise campaign spending, and reduce general-election choice for voters whose preferred party is not on the ballot. Katie King of the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined the different primary models used nationwide, explained that Massachusetts currently uses an open-to-unaffiliated primary, and reviewed legal distinctions between blanket primaries and top-two systems; she noted that blanket primaries were struck down by the Supreme Court, while Washington’s top-two system was upheld because it narrows the field rather than nominating party candidates. She also said voter education and administrative preparation would be important if the system changed. The proponents’ panel, led by Danielle Allen of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, argued that Massachusetts has chronically uncompetitive elections, low turnout, and too many uncontested races, and that all-party primaries would give every voter a meaningful choice in the first round and force candidates to appeal to a broader electorate. Allen said the proposal is designed specifically for Massachusetts and differs from other states by allowing party endorsements to appear on the ballot, which supporters said would preserve useful information while shifting control of the preliminary election from party insiders to voters. Jim Henderson, the coalition’s counsel, said the bill is narrowly tailored to state-level primaries and would amend Chapter 53 to put all voters on equal footing. Other supporters, including Kevin Johnson, Kate Kavanaugh, and Spencer Reynolds, emphasized that the reform could increase competition, reduce polarization, improve participation by independents and underrepresented voters, and create more accountability to the full electorate. Committee members pressed the witnesses on turnout, the practical effect of endorsements, whether the proposal would simply shift party influence to an earlier stage, and whether it could disadvantage minority-party or independent candidates. Senator Fattman repeatedly asked about evidence that turnout would materially increase, while Representative Peisch and others questioned whether requiring or seeking endorsements would create new barriers or pressure candidates to clear the field. Supporters responded that the system would modestly increase primary participation, that the general election would remain the decisive contest, and that endorsements would be optional and handled through party rules. No vote was taken at the hearing; the committee heard testimony and questions only.

Transcript Highlights:

• 1,200 what's the average number of cases 1,200 what's the average number of cases you<00:40:21.000
• is the DCd uh electronic Cas case is the DCd uh electronic Cas case management<01:26:50.040>
• There’s about 65 cases that are more than 360 days, three cases more than 180 days, and eight cases that
• and we you know there's about 65 cases and we you know there's about 65 cases<01:41:29.920> that<
• Okay, it's a case-by-case basis.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So in that case, it's acceptable.
• So in that case, it's acceptable.
• know, small crypto operations want to pop up, that's something that they would have to look at on a case-by-case
• Many different use cases.
• In many cases, the answer is yes.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Nationally, there's around 50,000 cases that are sampled.
• And our USDA partners subsample about 50% or 25,000 of those cases.
• We are calling them the case improvement specialists.
• If the case was properly worked, then it would proceed to the next level.
• To answer Representative Nelson's question, we did have two cases.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the March 18 minutes, and then received a series of updates on health-related projects and Department of Health and Human Services budget matters. Representatives from CHI St. Alexius in Bismarck and Williston, and Altru in Grand Forks, reported progress on behavioral health expansion projects, including demolition and construction milestones, updated timelines, funding status, staffing plans, and barriers such as an unbudgeted air handler replacement in Williston. Members asked about original completion dates, use of telehealth, recruitment of psychiatrists and other staff, and whether the new beds might reduce the need for patients to travel to Jamestown State Hospital. The projects were described as on track overall, with completion expected in 2027 for the larger builds and earlier openings for some phases in Williston. The committee then heard from HHS leadership on technical line-item transfers and the Salaries and Wages Block Grant. Donna Ockland explained that recent transfers were administrative corrections to place spending in the proper budget lines and did not involve new spending, and she reviewed FTE counts and vacancies across the department. Questions focused on behavioral health staffing changes and the use of consultants in the Rural Health Transformation Program. Pat Rainer outlined the rural health program’s first-year grants and priorities, including workforce retention, rural rotations and housing, community wellness initiatives, behavioral health promotion, safety net services, hospital equipment, suicide prevention training, technology, and EMS support. He said North Dakota’s plan was drawing positive national attention, but the department still needed to obligate roughly $199 million by September and was working with CMS on timing and compliance. The committee also received an update on certified community behavioral health clinics from Elena Zeller. She said North Dakota had been accepted as a demonstration state, with certification efforts underway in Williston, North Central, Fargo, and Dickinson. Members asked about care coordination, service growth, staffing, and whether certification would expand to all clinics; the department said it was still collecting baseline data and evaluating impacts before making future recommendations. Finally, Rebecca Askins reviewed SNAP payment error rates, explaining that the 2025 rate was finalized at 9.89 percent and that the department is working on training, system changes, and quality assurance steps to get below 6 percent. Members pressed on the causes of monthly variability, the performance of the SPACES system, and accountability for ongoing errors, and the department said it expects improvement over the next 6 to 12 months.

Transcript Highlights:

• The first, prosecution must show the evidence is relevant to the case at hand.
• Like I said, we already do this in the cases of you know, sexual abuse cases where we have this cycle
• You know, in the domestic violence case, what is also frustrating for the prosecutor is the case where
• And so then the case ultimately gets dismissed.
• Nothing goes to that court case.

Bills: HB2894, HB3418, HB3415, HB3413, HB3414, HB3416, HB3417, HB3419, HB3420, HB1739, HB1752, HB1979, HB2941, HB2992, HB3075, HB3086, HB3177, HB3269, HB3278, HB3279, HB3497, HB3644, HB4432, HB3720, HB3849, HB3882, HB3919, HB3941, HB4118, HB4141, HB4268, HB4342, HB4428, HB4429, HB4434

Keywords: HB2894, Oklahoma Rural Jobs Act, rural jobs, rural investment, tax credit, capital investment tax credit, state tax credits, economic development, rural fund, rural investor, qualified investment, eligible business, Department of Commerce, rural business, investment certification, tax liability, credit cap, workforce development, small business finance, rural development

Transcript Highlights:

• of troopers proactively enforcing the law would also mean more pursuits, but that has not been the case
• Well, I was just thinking when you said that about pleading it down, just like DWI cases, some of that
• It can be a tactic that's used in some cases, so there was concern on their part about us running that
• Our staff presents the case, so we're the prosecutor, so to speak, and we present that case to the commission
• But yes, we have had cases that are more severe. Just procedurally, that's the smart thing to do.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• BUT THIS CASE YOU IDENTIFIED A PROBLEM, WHERE FIXING IT.
• NOT GOING TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THIS IN CASE YOU WERE WORRIED HOW WE WOULD BE THERE.
• HIS CASE WAS NEVER DEEMED A CRISIS CASE AND IN THE LONG-TERM CARE PLAN, AND I WANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT
• IN MY CASE. WHERE MENTORS ARE THE ONES TO CALL FOR ANY KIND OF HELP THAT OUR MEMBERS NEED.
• LOOKING AT THE PROVIDER NETWORK, IN SOME CASES WE HAVE TO GO FROM SCRATCH.