Transcript Highlights:

• Well, we'll double-check. Will one become the superseding bill of the other?
• We'll double-check. Okay. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• The process has become more about checking boxes than delivering accountability.
• $150,000 because they said it was the totality of their account from which they wrote the $5,000 checks
• ISS and Glass-Lewis, as background, express a preference for companies that have a certain number of

Bills: SB312, SB945, SB946, SB1367, SB1861, SB2044, SB2337, SB2403, SB2819, SJR54

Keywords: public school funding, education, budget allocation, financial transparency, state law, local control, fiduciary responsibility, public retirement systems, investment management, proxy voting, financial factors, insurance, political shareholder proposals, fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions, environmental regulation, discrimination, credit extension, social credit, value-based standards

Transcript Highlights:

• It's not going to be in a perfect place that's going to check every box that I or others might have that
• have concerns, but I do think that given the urgency, Check every box that I or others might have that
• So I'm supportive in its framework and happy to contribute and support with my technical background and
• AB 253 addresses this critical administrative hurdle by ensuring timely post-entitlement plan checks
• It just allows different permit inspectors, basically, and plan checks, right?

Summary: The committee heard a series of housing and wildfire-recovery bills, with members repeatedly framing the package as a response to the Los Angeles fires and the state’s broader housing affordability crisis. AB 306, by Assembly Member Schultz, would place a six-year moratorium on new residential building-code updates and local code modifications except for health-and-safety emergencies. Supporters argued it would reduce costs and provide certainty for rebuilding and new housing production, while opponents from environmental, clean-energy, and labor groups warned it would freeze beneficial code improvements, delay innovation, and limit local control. Despite those concerns, several members said they would support the bill while seeking amendments, and the committee voted it out on a due pass recommendation to Appropriations. The committee also approved AB 301, which would require state agencies to follow shot-clock style deadlines for reviewing building permits, and AB 253, which would allow licensed third-party professionals to conduct certain post-entitlement permit reviews if local departments take more than 30 days. Supporters said both bills would reduce delays, lower costs, and speed rebuilding and housing production; some members emphasized that safety reviews must remain intact. AB 301 passed on a due pass vote to Appropriations, and AB 253 passed 8-0 to Local Government. AB 462, by Assembly Member Lowenthal, would exempt accessory dwelling units in Los Angeles County’s coastal zone from coastal development permit requirements, with the goal of speeding ADU construction for disaster recovery and housing supply. Supporters said ADUs are a proven tool and that the bill would help displaced residents and future coastal disaster areas; one member of the public opposed the bill, arguing ADU proliferation can change neighborhood conditions. The committee sent AB 462 to Appropriations on an 8-0 vote. The final bill discussed, AB 299, would let disaster-displaced families stay in hotels, motels, and short-term rentals for more than 30 days without triggering landlord-tenant rules, mirroring an earlier homelessness-related law; the transcript ended as the author began presenting the bill and its support.

Transcript Highlights:

• The same way like the federal government does, that checks the actual ingredients, checks the percentages
• Once we know that they've been checked, we can always go out. and maybe pull some out of the market have
• No, well, of course, part of our application is a coronal background check.
• I am not aware of one at this time, and I will again go back and check.
• us yeah but just because I say yes doesn't mean that's fact so what happens in that case you still check

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• democracy is made up, as the executive and the legislative and the judicial balance, we have our checks
• Because if you're not there, then what I'm hearing is you're just checking a box of having a meeting.
• I know because it was my full-time job, and this is just for my background and knowledge being before
• You can check a box that you came and gave us the information. And that's what my plea is.
• It sounds like we should have another meeting in April, and to come back and check on this and see where

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• um you know if I'm getting an IRS check um you know if I'm getting an IRS check they<00:19:18.880
• Got back to us "Let me check on it."
• Sorry, I checked that to testify just to support this time.
• And you did sign up, and you also checked off the box that you wanted to speak, and I checked you off
• And you did sign up, and you also checked off the box that you wanted to speak, and I checked you off

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We offer check-in and check-out plans.
• We offer check-in and check-out plans.
• We offer check-in and check-out plans.
• We offer check-in and check-out plans.
• We offer them dinner, a place to do homework, a place to check in.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• But a little bit of background here.
• <01:31:10.560> The but a little bit of background here.
• The but a little bit of background here.
• > and<02:29:32.800> industry variety of backgrounds and industry variety of backgrounds and
• Signed, blank check. So before that, before one bottle gets put on one truck, it's paid for.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Anyone with a background in education probably understands the frequency with which fads wind up getting
• <00:07:13.919> in this anyone with a background in this anyone with a background in education
• Some of my background involves tutoring elementary and middle school children in mathematics.
• um uh I'll double check um uh I'll double check um<04:14:31.840> uh<04:14:32.359> the<
• <04:22:19.080> are see what their criminal backgrounds are see what their criminal backgrounds

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 129, which would redefine “evidence-based” in public education to require objective, science-based evidence for pedagogical methods. The prime sponsor said the bill is a verbatim reintroduction from the prior session and argued that current federal definitions are too vague, allowing subjective surveys and other weak evidence to justify teaching methods. He said the bill is limited to pedagogy, not subject matter, and is intended to improve student outcomes, reduce fad-driven practices, and potentially save money by limiting unnecessary retraining and new materials. Members asked repeatedly about the bill’s scope, including whether it would affect classroom teachers, curriculum content, and existing instructional approaches such as phonics versus whole language or queuing. The sponsor said the bill applies to state and local education bodies and educator training policies, not individual teachers in their classrooms, and that teachers would retain flexibility. He also said standardized testing could be part of a scientific study but is not itself a study, and that textbook providers could be asked to furnish the studies supporting instructional guidance included in their materials. Several members raised concerns about the fiscal note and possible cost shifts to local districts and taxpayers. The sponsor disputed the idea that the bill would necessarily create major new costs or require additional staff, saying any costs would likely be limited and that the department is already applying federal evidence-based rules. He also said if some current methods are not science-based, updating them would be justified even if there were some initial expense. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• little context so that we're not talking about it in a vacuum, so there will be a little bit of background
• We're not talking about it in a vacuum, so there will be a little bit of background information about
• And she can give you a little background... ...on physicians in general.
• And she can give you a little background about herself, about how it is she has developed some information
• Baker and ask her to maybe describe a little bit more about her background and proceed with her presentation

Bills: HB99, HB49, HB164, SB30, SB43, SB50, SB136

Keywords: medical malpractice, malpractice reform, patient's compensation fund, PCF, health care liability, tort reform, damage caps, punitive damages, hospital liability, physician liability, nurse practitioner, certified nurse-midwife, outpatient facility, ambulatory surgical center, urgent care, free-standing emergency room, insurance surcharge, superintendent of insurance, New Mexico hospitals, medical review process

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's the background, Madam Chair.
• We don't have medical backgrounds, and we relied on the hospital and doctors to diagnose and treat our
• And let me check in on the sponsor for SB 1. Oh, my God, that's 40.
• Let me give, if you don't mind, just a little bit of background about how we got here.
• Let me give, if you don't mind, just a little bit of background about how we got here.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So while we've been working hard in the background to improve that technical model, it has literally
• But this slide really goes to a bit of the background on sidewalks.
• So to give you a rough background on it, it encompasses about 3,300 acres, whereas 2,800 is owned by
• So give you a rough background on it and encompasses about 3,300 acres, whereas 2,800 is owned by Alcoa
• It writes a check that we never actually collected that payment for to the Port District.

Summary: The committee first heard an update on the Joint Transportation Committee study of transportation impacts if the Lower Snake River dams were removed. WSDOT and Jacobs described the study’s phases, including current work on geology, infrastructure risk, and a total logistics cost model. They explained that the study is examining how freight now moved by barge—especially wheat, fertilizer, and wood—could shift to rail and roads, and they outlined several scenarios ranging from no-dam future conditions to new unit-train terminals, short-line rail options, and a combined “many solutions” scenario. Members asked about irrigation, impacts in Idaho and Oregon, port capacity, emissions, competition, EV trucks, and whether the model could estimate transportation effects if grain volumes decline. The presenters said the study assumes current production levels continue, does not model irrigation changes or broader farm-economics impacts, but does account for transloading costs and can estimate transportation impacts under different volume assumptions. WSU’s independent review team said the model has improved substantially but still needed refinement, especially in routing, road data, and spatial detail, and that stakeholder engagement had been strong though delayed by model development. No votes were taken. The committee then received a presentation on the alternative sidewalk funding study. Staff and consultants said the study is exploring ways local governments could sustainably fund sidewalk maintenance, repair, and new construction, using a statewide survey, interviews, national research, and case studies in eight jurisdictions. They noted sidewalks are important for pedestrian safety and connectivity, but there is no dedicated funding source in Washington, and existing grants and local revenue tools are highly competitive or limited. The consultants highlighted sidewalk fees or utility-style charges as the most promising option to study, while a parcel tax was largely set aside because of state property-tax uniformity concerns. Members asked whether the study would duplicate existing funding or add to current taxes, and how a sidewalk fee would be collected; the consultants said the goal is to expand local options, not mandate adoption, and that fees would likely be billed through utilities rather than property taxes. A preliminary draft report is due December 15, with a final report due in mid-June. Next, staff gave a brief update on the ocean-going vessels study, which is examining shore power and emissions rules for vessels at berth. The presenter explained that federal Clean Air Act rules and California waiver authority create legal limits on how far Washington can go if it wants to adopt similar standards, and that deviations from California’s approach can increase litigation risk. The report will summarize stakeholder outreach and will be presented in draft form at the next JTC meeting. Finally, county engineers from Chelan and Douglas counties began a presentation on county transportation challenges, with the association’s director emphasizing collaboration with state agencies and local partners on issues such as fish passage barriers and infrastructure needs. The county presentation was only beginning when the transcript ended, and no committee action or votes were recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• We also conduct background and qualification reviews of all wardens prior to their appointment by the
• Governor, with the exception of warden background reviews.
• checks people are doing ahead of time.
• I'm asking this line of questioning is that dealing with one of the cases I handled in my... ...background
• criminal elements that are present or not, hopefully the individual making that assessment has some background

Summary: The hearing focused first on sexual abuse, harassment, and retaliation in California’s women’s prisons, with testimony from CDCR wardens, the Office of Inspector General, advocacy groups, and formerly incarcerated survivors. Legislators and witnesses described a pattern of staff misconduct, fear of retaliation, gaps in reporting, and the need for stronger accountability, better investigations, and more outside access for survivor support organizations. CDCR said it has expanded training, body-worn and stationary cameras, outside partnerships, and PREA-related response procedures, while the Inspector General requested additional funding and staff to monitor more grievances and staff sexual misconduct cases under SB 1069. Members pressed CDCR on why accused staff are not always placed on leave, how cases are referred to prosecutors, and whether current protections are enough; several members argued the state should aim to investigate all complaints and do more to prevent retaliation and repeat abuse. The second issue was rehabilitative and reentry programming in women’s prisons. CDCR’s Division of Rehabilitative Programs and the wardens highlighted education, vocational training, substance use treatment, peer support, and community reentry programs, citing increased enrollment and recent graduates earning diplomas, degrees, and certifications. They said these programs are intended to reduce recidivism and improve public safety. Formerly incarcerated advocates and community providers argued that current offerings are still too limited, outdated, and not aligned with today’s job market, especially around digital literacy and transferable credentials, and they urged more funding for community-based, trauma-informed, gender-responsive programming. A coalition representative asked for a $20 million continuation and expansion of the Wright Grant program, and members discussed additional budget requests for reentry and related women’s services.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, this bill, uh, that was originally passed here in Vermont in 1986... background on what a disclaimer
• of a background on what a disclaimer of a property<00:06:57.600> interest<00:06:58.000> is
• Is there any way to check on that? Was this come up in the conversation at all, Mr. President?
• Is there any way to check on that? Was this come up in the conversation at all, Mr. President?
• Is there any way to check on that? Was this come up in the conversation at all, Mr. President?

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We appreciate the background. Any further questions?
• Good morning, sir. >> Good morning. >> You've checked in opposed. >> Yes. I'd like to explain.
• >> You've<00:27:05.039> checked<00:27:05.279> in<00:27:05.520> opposed.
• >> You've checked in opposed. >> You've checked in opposed.
• Um, but I just should say it's background.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't always know exactly the background.
• Senate Bill 160 by the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, relating to background checks and
• checks.
• In our country, the federal government writes the checks for welfare programs, many welfare programs,
• federal government with HR1 came along and said, enough, we're just not going to give you a blank check

Summary: The Assembly met in session, established a quorum, and opened with a prayer and Pledge of Allegiance recognizing 9/11. Members then moved through a long daily file and concurrence calendar, with many items passed without debate or temporarily retained. The chamber also took procedural actions, including re-referring AB 1152 to the Public Safety Committee, suspending rules for guest access and file-item handling, and later taking a roll-call vote to allow a late-filed journal letter request. Among the major Senate bills taken up on third reading, the Assembly approved SB 385 on peace officers’ rights, SB 753 on shopping cart recovery, SB 838 on housing and hotel projects, SB 643 on carbon dioxide removal grants, SB 645 on jury peremptory challenges in civil cases, SB 761 on CalFresh access for students, SB 774 on real estate licensing sunsets, SB 400 on renewable energy labor tax incentives, SB 24 on utility spending transparency, SB 37 on attorney advertising ethics, SB 258 on spousal rape involving disabled spouses, SB 364 on outdoor advertising near new freeways, SB 403 removing the sunset from medical aid in dying, SB 770 on HOA barriers to EV charging, and SB 22 on gift certificate cash redemption values. Most of these measures passed with little or no opposition; SB 403 and SB 770 drew more divided votes, while SB 24 was briefly delayed by a call before passing. The Assembly also concurred in numerous Senate amendments on Assembly bills covering a wide range of topics, including service of process (AB 747), local clean energy planning (AB 39), firearms (AB 1078), workers’ compensation (AB 1336), public health (AB 1487), survivor leave protections (AB 406), solid waste (AB 70), water reporting for data centers (AB 93), Diwali recognition (AB 268), wildfire workforce recovery (AB 338), educational equity (AB 419), civic education (AB 422), office-to-housing conversions (AB 507), cannabis tax relief (AB 564), privacy/browser opt-out rules (AB 566), housing element transparency (AB 610), tenant appliance requirements (AB 628), code enforcement penalties (AB 632), homelessness and LGBTQ-related policy (AB 678), energy (AB 740), DEIA review in state government (AB 766), inmate firefighter wages (AB 247), children’s health (AB 798), real estate (AB 851), COVID-era rehiring protections (AB 858), hazardous materials (AB 961), real property and housing covenants (AB 1050), aging (AB 1069), health care facilities (AB 1172), endangered species protections (AB 1319), CalWORKs modernization (AB 1324), cannabis access for seriously ill patients (AB 1332), foreign labor contractors (AB 1362), and downtown revitalization financing (AB 1445). Several of these passed overwhelmingly, while a few drew notable opposition, including AB 93, AB 403, AB 770, AB 851, AB 1050, and AB 1319. The transcript also included extended debate on SB 34, which was presented as a compromise measure on air pollution and port operations in the San Pedro Bay area. Supporters said it narrowed the scope to protect union jobs while preserving AQMD authority, while opponents and supporters alike noted the underlying distrust between labor and environmental stakeholders. The Assembly passed SB 34, SB 515 on disaggregated demographic data collection, and then began taking up AB 495 on immigration, with the sponsor describing family separation and immigration enforcement trauma before the transcript cuts off.

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to double-check that and make sure.
• The DA could have looked at the evidence and checked the phone.
• Let me kind of comment and give you a little bit of background.
• What stuck with me was the background and purpose that was offered in that piece of legislation, which
• That was the background and purpose that was put forward in that bill before it was substituted in the

Bills: HB867, HB1347, HB1801, HB1820, HB2197, HB2617, HB3110, HB3166, HB3330, HB4237, HB4342, HB4629, HB4933, HJR148

Keywords: criminal case dismissal, attorney discretion, law enforcement misconduct, judicial approval, evidence, judicial consent, transparency, healthcare, Medicare, insurance, elderly, retired, benefits, access, cost, criminal justice, case dismissal, prosecutorial discretion, law enforcement oversight, criminal procedure

Transcript Highlights:

• For additional background, this exempt position supervises a highly technical, uh, highly technical senior
• I would like to check with my subject matter experts and see if they're seeing that in form filings.
• We have, last time I checked, 35 different plans that we're trying to approve so that as a sign of growth
• Uh, page 7 is just some background statistics, and we're going to talk about these challenges, but I'd
• to ensure that those who want to pursue licensure have at least those basic, um, education, um, background

Transcript Highlights:

• And let me check my watch. We got one minute before we start 1161. 15. 1505. Oh, 1505. Okay.
• I checked recently, looked at over this weekend.
• I checked recently looked at happens.
• I checked recently looked at over<00:23:37.120> this<00:23:37.280> weekend.
• In addition to my public service, I have a background in construction and worked with two Fortune 100

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The House bill requires criminal background checks for circulators. The Senate bill does not.
• checked, although we don't require that in this bill.
• Having my background checked, although we don't require that in this bill, and I'm going to submit to
• I think I understand the background.
• I think I understand the background.

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and several recognitions, including interns, Denim Day awareness, and a resolution honoring Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange. Senators also paid tribute to former Senator Karen Johnson Gendron with a moment of silence. The chamber then moved to special-order bills after routine announcements that no committee reports, governor’s messages, or House messages were on the desk. The first major bill, SB 138/HB 687 on transportation offenses involving death, increased penalties for repeat DUI/BUI manslaughter and vehicular homicide offenses and added warnings and misdemeanor penalties for refusing lawful breath or urine tests. After a brief amendment and questions about attorney rights and prior impairing-substance language, the bill passed 37-0. SB 306 on Medicaid providers followed, requiring broader provider access, including after-hours availability and more primary care access for Medicaid enrollees; it also passed 37-0. The chamber then took up the major condominium reform bill, SB 1742/HB 913, addressing post-Surfside safety, reserve funding, milestone inspections, budgeting, reserve flexibility, manager regulation, conflicts of interest, and condo sale rescission periods. Senators from both parties praised the sponsors for extensive stakeholder work and the bill passed 37-0 after multiple amendments. The final major item was SB 7016/HB 1205 on constitutional amendments and petition-gathering rules, with sponsors arguing the bill was needed to combat fraud in the 2024 petition process and opponents warning it would burden citizen initiatives. The Senate adopted the House bill and then considered numerous amendments on petition circulator rules, submission deadlines, invalid-signature thresholds, voter notification, and related enforcement provisions; several amendments were adopted, and the substitute was later withdrawn, leaving the chamber to continue on the underlying bill and remaining amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, somebody needs to check their mute.
• Yeah, somebody needs to check their mute.
• So WashDots are going to be the lead to the lead. to check their mute.
• And while I appreciate you giving me all of those dates and explaining that kind of background, I will
• Please, go ahead. that kind of background.

Summary: The Joint Committee on Interstate 5 Bridge met remotely with Washington legislative members to receive updates on the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program, including environmental review, cost and funding, tolling, and procurement for construction. Program staff said the final supplemental environmental impact statement was published in April 2026, with a federal record of decision expected in early summer. They described the recommended design as a single-level fixed-span bridge, centered I-5 alignment, C Street ramps, one auxiliary lane in each direction, and dispersed park-and-ride parking. Members raised concerns about transparency, the closed chat function, and the decision not to include two auxiliary lanes; staff said the one-lane option was recommended through consultation with partner agencies and analysis, but the final decision would come with the record of decision. Staff also said the diversion analysis projected less than 3% traffic diversion to I-205 in 2045, though members from Oregon and Washington expressed concern about impacts to their communities and asked for more detail on mitigation and decision-making. The committee also reviewed a major cost update. Staff said the full five-mile program is now estimated at $13.5 billion to $15.2 billion, with a likely cost of $14.4 billion, up from a 2022 estimate of $5 billion to $7.5 billion, citing inflation, schedule delays, scope changes, and more detailed risk modeling. They said the first funded phase has been reduced to a $5.68 billion package focused on the Columbia River bridge replacement, connections to I-5, Hayden Island and SR-14, bridge demolition, tolling infrastructure, and advancing light rail design. Funding for that phase was described as $5.69 billion, including $2.1 billion federal funds, $1 billion from each state, and $1.5 billion in projected toll revenue. Members asked what would happen if costs rise further; staff said the estimate includes substantial contingency, the project will use progressive design-build to manage risk, and the team will continue updating the finance plan annually. A separate tolling and traffic-revenue presentation explained that four toll scenarios were analyzed using regional travel demand modeling, a toll diversion model, and a post-processing review. All scenarios assume pre-completion tolling beginning July 1, 2028, a 50% low-income discount for eligible users, and exemptions for tribal preemptions, emergency vehicles, maintenance vehicles, and organized militia. Staff said the low-income discount would affect about 4% to 6% of annual transactions and reduce annual revenues by roughly 2% to 3%. They said Scenario 2 was used for the financial analysis and is sufficient to support the $1.5 billion toll contribution in the funded phase. Members asked about toll collection costs, revenue impacts of the discount, and how the scenarios differed; staff said collection costs are expected to be in line with other WSDOT toll facilities, but exact costs are not yet set because toll rates are not final. Finally, WSDOT staff outlined procurement and delivery steps for construction. They said WSDOT will be the lead contracting agency, using progressive design-build, with a request for qualifications targeted for early July 2026, a request for proposals in October, contractor selection in April 2027, construction starting in 2028, and tolling beginning in 2028. Staff said the approach is intended to consolidate scope, reduce interface risk, and allow transparent negotiation with an independent cost estimator, while preserving an off-ramp if a fair price cannot be reached. Members asked for more detail on timing, cost allocation, and the share of the first phase funded by tolls; staff estimated tolls account for about 26% of the first phase cost.