Transcript Highlights:

• Now it gives parents control in directing their child's education, and this legislation gives parents
• So the parental choice exists.
• groups was concerned that without the clarification the data could not be shared with that parent group
• for our parent organization, which we call APT, Association of Parents and Teachers.
• That's a concern to me. Mr.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Right, parents are... non-confidential. Right, parents are custodians and have access to that.
• Right now, what rights does a parent have to review the records in... parent have to review the records
• Did you record the parent?
• Well, I agree with your concerns.
• I think that's one of y'all's concerns still. concerns still. It would be, but he's right.

Bills: HB493

Keywords: child advocacy centers, certification, funding allocation, Alabama Network, forensic evaluation, children's welfare, 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Horn responded that many parents have expressed the same concern, but under the universal protocol, when
• Some have claimed that parents' concerns are exaggerated, Some have claimed that parents' concerns are
• Parents in Arizona already have full access to information concerning their children.
• we've heard from parents and attorneys and concerned citizens and many of... ...parents and attorneys
• Why does this legislature, who so frequently laments about the idea of parental rights and concern about

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Number two, we trust parents, and we have to trust parents.
• I've seen parents share a common concern.
• As a parent, I'm also concerned about the proposed plan.
• My name is Caitlin Cash, and I’m here as a concerned parent that is opposed to Senate Bill 2.
• for parents. ...choices to parents beyond public schools, it fails to provide choice for parents of

Summary: The Senate Committee on Education K-16 convened with a quorum, adopted its committee rules, and heard opening remarks from members introducing staff and outlining priorities for the session. Several senators emphasized support for public education, teacher pay and safety, parental choice, and the combined K-16 jurisdiction of the committee. The chair also reviewed hearing procedures, including public testimony registration and time limits. The main item was Senate Bill 2, the Texas Education Freedom Act, laid out by Chairman Creighton. He described the bill as an education savings account program intended to expand school choice, with a $200 million universal eligibility pool and an additional $800 million targeted to students with disabilities and lower-income families. He said the bill includes anti-fraud safeguards, criminal background checks for vendors, reporting requirements, data protections, and annual testing for participating students, while not imposing STAAR on private schools or homeschoolers. He also said the bill removes a prior hold-harmless provision for public schools and is separate from public school funding and teacher pay legislation. Members questioned the bill’s income threshold, lottery and priority structure, treatment of homeschoolers, microschools, charter schools, religious freedom protections, citizenship/lawful presence language, cybersecurity, open records, and disability-related issues, including whether 504 students and foster children should be included. Creighton said the bill is designed to prioritize former public school students with disabilities or lower incomes, while also allowing universal eligibility within the program’s first funding tier, and that the Comptroller would oversee vendor screening and cybersecurity rules. He said the bill does not direct curriculum or interfere with religious beliefs and that amendments may be offered later on citizenship and other issues. After member questions, the committee began invited testimony, starting with EdChoice representative Robert Inlow, who testified in support of SB 2 and cited national growth in school choice programs and studies he said show positive effects for students and public schools.

Transcript Highlights:

• There is a growing concern that records are being kept from parents, and school districts continue to
• A growing concern regarding the information parents have access to has created significant pressure on
• parents?
• against bad parenting as opposed to good parenting because, of course, good parenting, there's this
• As a parent, I am concerned about the effects of excessive cell phone usage on our children's mental

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee heard a full agenda of bills, first adopting a consent calendar of 11 measures without individual presentations. The committee then took up AB 1412, which would require California schools to implement or adopt a transferred special education student’s IEP within 30 days for out-of-state transfers and to coordinate more quickly on records. The author and military-family witnesses said the bill would reduce delays for highly mobile students, especially military children; a school administrators group opposed it. The bill received initial support from committee members and was moved on call. The committee also reconsidered AB 281, which would require notice to parents when outside consultants provide sex education instruction; the author accepted amendments removing a copy-right provision, but the bill remained on call after a split vote. The committee heard AB 1005, which would create a statewide drowning-prevention education and swim-lesson voucher framework for underserved communities. The author and supporters described drowning as a preventable public health and equity issue, while the bill was clarified as developing a plan rather than immediately launching a voucher program. It was voted out on a 3-0 roll with the measure placed on call. AB 908, as amended, would add compliance monitoring for existing requirements that schools use LGBTQ-inclusive instructional materials and curriculum under the FAIR Act. Supporters said the bill would improve implementation and student safety; opponents raised concerns about privacy, girls’ sports, and school burdens. The committee approved the bill 5-2 and sent it to Appropriations. The committee then heard AB 1401, which would affirm parents’ access to school records, including unofficial records unless exempt by law. The author argued that parents need clearer access to information held by schools and vendors, while school officials and teachers’ union representatives warned the bill was too vague and could sweep in personal notes, journals, and other sensitive material. The bill failed on a 2-3 vote and was placed on call. Finally, AB 727 would require student ID cards to include the Trevor Project hotline for LGBTQ youth; supporters framed it as a suicide-prevention measure, while opponents argued it conflicted with parental rights and religious beliefs. Committee discussion focused on whether 988 already provides similar access and whether the Trevor Project is an appropriate resource to print on IDs; the hearing continued with the bill still under consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• I've seen parents share a common concern: they want the freedom to make educational choices for their
• I've seen parents share a common concern.
• As a parent, I'm also concerned about the proposed plan.
• My name is Caitlin Cash, and I'm here as a concerned parent opposed to Senate Bill 2.
• for parents. ...choices to parents beyond public schools, it fails to provide choice for parents of

Summary: The Senate Committee on Education K-16 convened with a quorum, adopted its committee rules, and heard opening remarks from members introducing staff and outlining priorities for the session. Members from both parties emphasized education as a major issue, while several Republicans framed the committee’s work around school choice and parent empowerment. Senator West and other Democrats stressed protecting public schools, listening to Texans, and considering the effects of vouchers or education savings accounts on school districts and communities. Chairman Creighton laid out Senate Bill 2, the Texas Education Freedom Act, describing it as a universal education savings account program modeled on similar programs in other states. He said the bill would provide about $200 million for a universal eligibility pool and additional funding for students with disabilities and lower-income families, with priority weighting for former public school students. He also highlighted anti-fraud measures, vendor pre-approval, criminal background checks, cybersecurity protections, annual testing requirements for participating students, and the use of the Comptroller rather than TEA to administer the program. Creighton repeatedly said the bill is not a voucher and argued it would not take money from public schools, which he said would receive separate historic funding increases. Members questioned Creighton about the 500% of federal poverty line definition, the adequacy of the $10,000 ESA amount, whether the program would favor students already in private school, how microschools and homeschool pods would fit, and whether the bill protects religious liberty and private-school autonomy. Democrats raised concerns about disability protections, 504 students, foster children, public-school funding, open records, and the historical context of vouchers. Republicans generally supported the bill as a way to expand options for parents and students, while also asking about administration, fraud prevention, and data security. After member questions, the committee began invited testimony, with EdChoice President Robert Inlow presenting in support of SB 2 and citing the growth and reported success of school choice programs nationwide.

Transcript Highlights:

• So part of my concern is getting enough interested parents to do this, and also with the composition
• enough interested concern is getting enough interested parents<00:30:28.279> to<00:30:28.440>
• talked about what were some of parents talked about what were some of their<01:17:33.360> concerns
• <01:24:42.760> have concern that some parents might have concern that some parents might have
• If there are parents in those tiny districts that have those concerns, the way this bill reads, there

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and noted weather-related absences and a large number of new bills. The chair said a subcommittee would be formed to review three cell phone bills, and a full committee work session on bullying would be scheduled for the week after next. The committee then began a hearing on House Bill 121, which would create local special education advisory councils in school districts. Representative Glenn Cordelli, the sponsor, said the councils would be parent-driven, with parents of children with disabilities advising districts on education, safety, program development, evaluation, planning, policies, and communication with administrators. He said the bill would require at least quarterly meetings with district administration, an annual parent workshop, and a year-end report to the school board. He also cited federal guidance from the U.S. Department of Education on parent advisory councils and said the goal was to improve collaboration between parents and schools. Members raised questions about the use of “shall,” how councils would be formed in districts without PTAs/PTOs, whether the councils could function in very small districts, privacy concerns about parents disclosing their children’s disabilities, whether the councils should include guardians or educational professionals, and whether the councils would have any direct tie to the state advisory council. The sponsor said the requirement was intended to make the councils mandatory, that local districts could organize them organically if needed, that participation would be voluntary, that parents would not be required to disclose private information, and that the councils would remain advisory rather than determinative. He also said costs should be minimal. Testimony then began from Nicole Sheath, a pediatric occupational therapist and parent of four children with disabilities, who described her experience balancing advocacy, school collaboration, and the demands of her children’s therapies and education.

Transcript Highlights:

• kind of parents, are we? kind of parents, are we?
• purpose of DCYF is to help parents purpose of DCYF is to help parents rectify<03:32:52.880> parenting
• So my concern is this: it reads to me to leave out due process to the parent.
• So my concern is this: it reads to me to leave out due process to the parent.
• So my concern is this: it reads to me to leave out due process to the parent.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first opened with brief remarks about a member’s recovery and then heard House Bill 518, which would require the commissioner of Health and Human Services to provide a detailed annual report of all costs related to DCYF. The sponsor, Representative Erica Layon, said the bill was intended to improve transparency, clarify how much time and money are spent on DCYF work versus other departmental work, and help future discussions about staffing, resources, and whether DCYF should remain within DHHS or become a separate department. She said the department could likely produce the report without additional cost, though she was open to adjusting the reporting date and possibly adding more detail about federal mandates. Former Representative Betty Gay and several members supported the bill as a way to better document costs and procedures, while DCYF Director Marie Nunan said the department was not taking a position on the bill, already has many policies and operating procedures, and believed it could comply without a fiscal note. Members raised questions about whether the reporting requirement duplicated existing oversight, whether it should apply to other agencies, and whether the report should include federal funding mandates. Some suggested that a broader review or subcommittee on DCYF might be more useful than a single reporting bill. In executive session, the committee voted 15-1 to retain HB 518, so it will not go on the calendar. Members said they wanted more time to discuss the bill, watch the budget process, and consider whether the reporting requirement could be implemented informally or through a broader oversight effort. The committee then moved on to House Bill 775, which was introduced by Representative Jodi Nelson as a measure to support supervised visitation centers. Dr. Scott Hampton testified in favor, describing the loss of visitation centers since 2019, the role of supervised visitation in protecting children and vulnerable parents in domestic violence cases, and the potential benefits for child safety, crime prevention, and family preservation.

Transcript Highlights:

• parents may want to participate.
• And to put it a different way, doesn't this nullify the parental voice of the parents who can't influence
• That's a concern of mine.
• So that definitely concerns me.
• Parents voting.

Summary: The committee first took up PCS for HB 123, which would change the process for converting a public school to a charter school by requiring approval from a majority of parents at the school, allow municipalities to apply to convert certain schools under limited circumstances, and address surplus school property in districts with declining enrollment. The sponsor said the bill is meant to give parents the primary say and to prevent districts from holding unused property. Opponents, including the Florida PTA, several members, and public speakers, argued the bill excludes teachers, school boards, and other stakeholders, could disenfranchise parents who do not live in the municipality, and could create enrollment, transportation, and equity problems. After debate, the bill passed 13-5 and was reported favorably. The committee then heard HB 597 on diabetes management in schools. The bill would allow school districts and charter schools to procure and store glucagon pens for emergency treatment of severe hypoglycemia, permit trained personnel to administer them, require 911 to be called after use, and add limited liability protections. The sponsor said the medication is inexpensive and could save lives for the roughly 7,000 diabetic K-12 students in Florida. An amendment clarified that public and charter schools are both covered. The bill drew support from the American Diabetes Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Florida PTA, and members from both parties praised the measure. It passed unanimously and was reported favorably. Finally, the committee heard HB 85 on hazardous walking conditions, which would add walking along freeways, expressways, and their ramps as a hazardous condition requiring bus service for elementary students within two miles of school. The sponsor described personal examples of children walking near dangerous roads and said the bill is intended to prevent injuries and deaths. An amendment narrowed the language by deleting “state highway.” Public testimony included a parent who described her child being hit by a car and urged broader coverage, while members raised concerns about bus shortages and fiscal impact. Most members spoke in support, emphasizing student safety, and the bill was reported favorably after debate.

Transcript Highlights:

• Through conversations with other families, I learned that similar concerns and issues with parenting
• So, should a parent consultant handle uh a suggestion to the parenting the parents and they disagree
• <00:47:46.400> disagree parenting the parents and they disagree parenting the parents and
• are stuck in a parental parents who are stuck in a parental consultant<00:48:20.079> that<00:48
• So should a parent consultant handle a suggestion to the parenting parents and they disagree with it,

Bills: HF3560, HF3295, HF2937, HF3540

Keywords: electronic signatures, estate planning, uniform law, legal documents, Minnesota statutes, open meeting law, transparency, public engagement, social media, government accountability, parenting consultant, parenting time, custody, family court, family law, neutral third party, alternative dispute resolution, child custody, visitation, parenting coordinator

Transcript Highlights:

• YES I TRUST MY PARENTS UNTIL THE PARENTS MOST THINGS ABOUT MEDICAL ISSUES HOWEVER THERE CAN BE CONCERNED
• I KEEP HEARING ABOUT PARENTS AND BAD PARENTS. THE VAST MAJORITY OF PARENTS ARE GOOD PARENTS.
• NOT ALL PARENTS ARE BAD PARENTS BUT THAT PARENTS ARE OUT THERE AND EVEN WELL-INTENTIONED PARENTS AREN'T
• HER WHILE SHE'S ALMOST 30 YEARS OLD AND AS WAS MENTIONED I'M CONCERNED THIS IS LEGISLATING TO THE PARENTS
• I WAS CONCERNED ALSO ABOUT THE NICHE CONCERN OF SOMEBODY'S PARENT IS THE PERSON BEING THE ABUSER IN THAT

Transcript Highlights:

• However, there's a growing concern that there are records being kept from parents and school districts
• A growing concern regarding the information parents have access to has created significant pressure on
• without concern.
• And my concern with opposing a bill like this. be that, you know, what are we trying to hide from parents
• As a parent I am concerned about the effects of excessive cell phone usage on our children's mental health

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It is under the purview of the parent, and that is stated in state statute. Of the parent.
• In fact, this bill does not protect parental choice. Parents should have a voice.
• Representative Hernandez, is it specifically the timely notification to parents that you're concerned
• Representative Hernandez, is it specifically the timely notification to parents that you're concerned
• In my mind, as a parent, I actually like being a parent in today's day and age because I get a lot of

Bills: HB2093, HB2370, HB2376, HB2380, HB2381, HB2383, HB2423, HB2481, HB2621, HB2895, HB4005, HB4043, HB4109

Keywords: mental health, school curriculum, education policy, instruction requirements, statute repeal, charter schools, education, weapons detection, public safety, school administration, school districts, real estate transactions, school property, bond issuance, land use approval, capital improvements, school governance, board meetings, education funding, parental notification

Transcript Highlights:

• One of the concerns that I have is just simply the fact that, um, parents are directed to the portal,
• This has become one of the top concerns I hear from parents.
• to resolve these concerns to ensure parents are given access to their children’s medical records as
• The concern there is that the protective order doesn't specify that the parent doesn't have access to
• to concern the parent, right?

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The speaker said they know they've had parents concerned about topics being taught in school that they
• It's the situation where the parent won't be supportive that we have to be concerned with.
• I understand you're concerned about putting the teacher in the second-in-command here, or the parent.
• I understand you're concerned about putting the teacher in the second-in-command here, or the parent.
• I understand you're concerned about putting the teacher in the second-in-command here, or the parent.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 34, which would require parental consent for each new service provided to a student through the Medicaid to Schools program and require reports to legislative policy committees. Senator Ruth Ward said the bill was intended to increase transparency, protect parental involvement, and ensure continuity of care, especially for students with disabilities. She also noted a proposed amendment she received shortly before the hearing that would change the bill’s focus from a “new service” to a “new care plan.” Representatives from the New Hampshire Primary Care Association and Amoscake Health testified that they opposed the bill as written but would support it with the amendment. They explained that tying consent to individual diagnosis codes or services could be burdensome, could delay care, and could create compliance problems if a diagnosis changes during a visit. They said the amendment would better align consent with the overall care plan and avoid interrupting treatment mid-appointment. Committee members raised questions about how the bill would interact with IEPs, individualized health plans, homebound services, telehealth, billing, and whether the amendment would still require parental involvement after a care plan changes. The deputy Medicaid director from the Department of Health and Human Services testified that the amendment was more operationally feasible because Medicaid billing involves many ICD-10 codes that can change or overlap, and consent should be tied to the care plan rather than to each code. He said the current law already requires parental consent for participation in the Medicaid to Schools program and annual consent for billing, but the bill would make explicit consent for care-plan changes. No vote was taken during the portion of the hearing provided, and the committee appeared to continue discussion with DHHS after the testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• You said that the issues and the concerns that we had have been addressed, but this still is a concern
• Representative Gomez shared her concerns about the Constitution. I share those concerns.
• The amendment addresses many of your concerns.
• And I know your concern is... do they...?
• But housing is still a huge concern.

Bills: SB15, SB35, SB290, SB1365, SB2568, SB18, SB427, SB1860, SB1864, SB2675, SB596, SB2858, SB3058, SB816, SB1163, SB1484, SB1898, SB1777, SB1802, SB2692, SB315, SB1585, SB1626, SB2058, SB2050, SB2105, SB2245, SB2764, SB2611, SB2497, SB2452, SB2243, SB1705, SB1244, SB1361, SB438, SB578, SB584, SB2690, SB2521, SB2487, SB2342, SB2063, SB125, SB2041, SB1962, SB1413, SB6, SB2878, SB13, SB30, SJR87, SB7, SB127, SB293, SB441, SB3059, SB57, SB512, SB1718, SB140, SB2055, SB2075, SB2018, SB1534, SB1567, SB785, SB1233, SB1580, SB1663, SB413, SB447, SB519, SB467, SB1579, SB1191, SB1021, SB1838, SB2807, SB2835, SB546, SB2121, SB2167, SB2024, SB1032, SB1049, SB1266, SB1400, SB1302, SB401, SB1596, SB1281, SB1242, SB1343, SB1346, SB2753, SB2221, SB1719, SB2177, SB552, SB646, SJR1, SB15, 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, SB35, SB290, SB1365, SB2568, SB18, SB427, SB1860, SB1864, SB2675, SB596, SB2858, SB3058, SB816, SB1163, SB1484, SB1898, SB1777, SB1802, SB2692, SB315, SB1585, SB1626, SB2058, SB2050, SB2105, SB2245, SB2764, SB2611, SB2497, SB2452, SB2243, SB1705, SB1244, SB1361, SB438, SB578, SB584, SB2690, SB2521, SB2487, SB2342, SB2063, SB125, SB2041, SB1962, SB1413, SCR9, SB21, SB1198, SB1405, SB2601, SB2778, HB5560, HB762, HB1584, HB 107, HB 114, HB138, HB4386, HB2495, HB581, HB3348, HB5323, HB4341, HB6, HB171, HB143, HB449, HB3486, HB4263, HB5246, HB2, HB2011, SB17

Keywords: SB 15, Texas Local Government Code, zoning preemption, housing affordability, small lots, lot size, lot density, single-family zoning, residential subdivision, municipal land use, local control, state preemption, parking requirements, setbacks, infill development, missing middle housing, lot width, lot depth, homebuilders, housing supply

Transcript Highlights:

• ' matter of minutes without their parents' matter of minutes without their parents' knowledge<00:
• House Bill 227 takes the same concerns House Bill 227 takes the same concerns being<00:10:52.720
• On behalf of our parental rights.
• We echo the concerns that were raised earlier that this bill does raise First Amendment concerns.
• The bill first amendment concerns.

Keywords: Meeting start: 00:00 Roll call: 00:05 HB 227 discussion: 01:10 HB 227 voting: 49:38, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum to consider House Bill 227, a time-sensitive measure focused on social media use by minors. The bill sponsor, Rep. Matt Lockett, and supporters including counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, the Attorney General’s office, and the Family Foundation argued that social media is addictive and harmful to children, contributes to mental health problems and exploitation, and that the bill would give parents more control while regulating addictive features rather than banning speech. Supporters said the bill is narrowly tailored, content-neutral, and designed to withstand constitutional scrutiny; the Attorney General’s office said it would defend the bill if challenged and described ongoing multi-state litigation against major platforms. One committee member also described seeing inappropriate AI-generated content on a 16-year-old’s phone as an example of the problem the bill seeks to address. Opposition testimony came from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, NetChoice, and the Computer and Communications Industry Association. They argued the bill raises First Amendment concerns because it conditions minors’ access on parental consent, regulates how private platforms communicate with users, and could function as a de facto speech ban. They also warned that the age-estimation requirement could force platforms to collect more sensitive data, creating privacy and security risks, and that the ban on “addictive features” was overly broad and could sweep in personalized feeds, notifications, autoplay, and other common tools. Opponents said the bill could especially harm vulnerable youth who rely on online access for community or safety information and urged the committee to craft a constitutional alternative. During questions, members asked how the state could enforce the law against national companies and were told enforcement would come through the Attorney General within Kentucky and potentially through multi-state litigation. Members also discussed the bill’s practical effects, including advertising revenue from youth users and the need for guardrails to protect children. The discussion continued with questions about the bill’s scope, parental consent, age estimation, and liability provisions, but no final vote or other committee action was shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• This allows parents to go to that teacher and say, I'm really concerned about my child.
• This allows parents to go to that teacher and say, I'm really concerned about my child.
• . parent. parent.
• <01:24:30.240> I've<01:24:30.560> noticed parents. I'm concerned.
• I've noticed parents. I'm concerned. I've noticed these<01:24:31.200> behaviors.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up Senate Bill 206, which requires public schools to adopt policies limiting student cell phone use. Supporters argued that cell phones and personal devices contribute to student mental health problems, bullying, distraction, and disruptive behavior, and said teachers and administrators want a clear statewide rule rather than having to enforce policies themselves. Opponents raised concerns about local control, the breadth of the term “personal communication device,” and whether the bill would interfere with instructional uses of devices, especially in schools that rely on bring-your-own-device or have limited access to school-issued laptops. Members debated Amendment 2249H, which added an exception for teacher-led instruction and clarified that superintendent-approved exceptions could still apply for medical, disability, or language-proficiency needs. After discussion about whether the amendment was too restrictive or too broad, the committee adopted the amendment on a 9-8 vote, with one member not voting. The committee then voted 9-8, with one not voting, to recommend Senate Bill 206 ought to pass as amended. The committee then moved to Senate Bill 96, concerning mandatory disclosure by school district employees to parents. The sponsor offered Amendment 2199H to replace language that would have required referral to DCYF whenever an educator withheld information due to concern about possible abuse at home. The amendment instead allows a district to withhold information if a reasonably prudent person would believe disclosure would result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect, and requires the decision to be documented in the student record. The amendment was discussed as a narrower, more workable safeguard, and the committee was still in discussion on the bill at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• parental rights solely because a parent parental rights solely because a parent will<03:03:42.960
• to recognize that their child is parent to recognize that their child is having<03:09:34.399> concerns
• parents, guardians, and foster parents parents, guardians, and foster parents parents<03:33:22.960><
• And so, of course, parents may be concerned about this and may say, 'Let's slow down.
• And so, of course, parents may<03:41:51.439> be<03:41:51.600> concerned<03:41:51.920>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm president of the Park View Institute, but I'll add I'm a concerned parent of a 5-year-old and a 9
• <00:09:30.399> parent<00:09:30.720> of<00:09:30.880> a but I'll add I'm a concerned
• parent of a but I'll add I'm a concerned parent of a 5-year-old<00:09:31.760> and<00:09:32.080
• > own parents actually replace parents' own parents actually replace parents' own decision-m<00
• concerns a few people have some concerns concerns a few people have some concerns with<00:26:01.679

Bills: HB69, HB114, HB161

Keywords: firearms, possession, Class 1 municipalities, criminal penalties, federal law, stolen firearms, prohibited persons, HB114, Alabama Sunset Law, sunset bill, Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama, dental board, dental licensing, dentist regulation, professional licensing, occupational licensing, healthcare regulation, licensure board, state agency continuation, agency sunset review