Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, is this subscription could give us economic modeling down to the county level in Wyoming.
• modeling software and maintenance fees. modeling software and maintenance fees.
• And um one of the reasons for models.
• So, we do a lot of modeling, and it takes up a lot of staff time.
• If we do X and expend economic modeling.

Bills: HB0105, HB0107, SF0002

Keywords: K-12 education, school facilities, security improvements, public funding, state appropriations, school construction, local government funding, sales tax distribution, municipal funding, economic equity, state revenue, Wyoming Legislature, legislative appropriations, Legislative Service Office, LSO budget, general fund, biennial budget, legislative branch, legislator travel, per diem

Transcript Highlights:

• How do we have a better scientific model here, or use a scientific model to really get these variables
• That was the Michigan. model.
• But I was wondering, in the CRP model or the Michigan model, are the medical boards involved in the health
• There's enough redundancy in medicine that we talk about the cheese holes and cheese model, reasons model
• At the top, we're supporting training on the eSIM model, the Sequential Intercept Model.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a revised model of the current collaborative practice model, and what it does is it establishes
• You might be wondering, do other states use this model?
• There are other states that incorporate parts of this model.
• The dental hygiene practitioner model, combined with the enhanced collaborative practice model and the
• You know that the Missouri model, yes, we did that.

Transcript Highlights:

• or closed models are more appropriate.
• But it's not clear at this moment whether open source models or closed models will ultimately prevail
• So what you're saying is Facebook's AI model LLAMA, I think it's called, that's an open source model
• So that's an open source model.
• And so just playing this out, if China's deep-seek model another open source model, I think, right, becomes

Keywords: Meta, Facebook, whistleblower, regulation, China, user data, artificial intelligence, testimony, Congress

Summary: The meeting of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism focused on oversight of Meta's foreign relations and representations to Congress. An essential witness, Sarah Wynne-Williams, a former executive at Facebook, provided testimony outlining significant concerns about the company's practices and its complicity in aiding oppressive regimes. The atmosphere was charged, with ongoing debates about the regulation of big tech companies and the ethical implications of their policies. The committee explored topics such as user data management, whistleblower retaliation, and the need for legislative measures to protect users and enhance accountability in the tech sector. A notable point of contention was Facebook's alleged cooperation with the Chinese government regarding the dissemination of user data and AI tools, leading to serious ethical implications.

Transcript Highlights:

• at how we can move forward and make this system really work and see how we can improve the funding model
• funding models for our state colleges and our tech schools.
• Now I'm going to go over the performance funding model in more detail at the very end.
• Okay, so now I'm going to dive a little deeper into the performance funding model.
• So as we developed the model, we had four guiding principles.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education received a presentation from Tim Jones, Senior Vice Chancellor and CFO for the State University System of Florida, on the system’s funding methodology, budget structure, tuition, and performance-based funding. He outlined the system’s scale, including 12 universities, more than 430,000 students taking classes, about 78,000 employees, and a roughly $20 billion operating budget. He also reviewed tuition levels, noting Florida’s low resident undergraduate tuition, the lack of tuition increases since 2013, and the distinction between state-set resident tuition and Board of Governors authority over other tuition categories. Jones described several funding components, including performance funding, preeminence funding, faculty recruitment and retention programs, universities of distinction, nursing pipeline and matching programs, and operational enhancements. He explained that performance funding is based on a 100-point model tied to retention, graduation, employment, and other metrics, with student success plans required if scores decline or fall below 70 points. He said the current performance funding allocation is $350 million and the legislative budget request seeks $400 million. He also said the new SUS 30 strategic plan will lead to updates in the performance metrics and benchmarks, with some changes possibly phased in over time. Senators asked questions about how the new strategic plan will affect future scoring, how long universities have to improve after declining scores, and how out-of-state enrollment and tuition are handled. Jones said universities will be evaluated on the current metrics for the upcoming budget cycle, while the new plan’s changes will be developed later and may include glide paths. He also said there is no statutory cap on nonresident students, though the Board of Governors has a 10% systemwide guideline under discussion, and that graduate out-of-state tuition varies by program and requires institutional and Board of Governors approval. No votes were taken, no public testimony was offered, and the committee adjourned.

Bills: SJR 39, SB 22, SB 30, SB 33, SB 34, SB 37, SB 75, SB 209, SB 310, SB 505, SB 552, SB 618, SB 626, SB 636, SB 732, SB 747, SB 762, SB 769, SB 819, SB 825, SB 870, SB 926, SB 964, SB 1030, SB 1080, SB 1099, SB 1124, SB 1177, SB 1208, SB 1233, SB 1314, SB 1325, SB 1333, SB 1405, SB 1455, SB 1506, SB 1524, SB 1541, SB 1577, SB 1579, SB 1596, SB 1646, SB 1667, SB 1727, SB 1750, SB 1758, SB 1760, SB 1791, SB 1804, SB 1806, SB 1869, SB 1923, SB 1927, SB 1951, SB 1960, SB 1962, SB 2023, SB 2024, SB 2056, SB 2078, SB 2122, SB 2129, SB 2180, SB 2183, SB 2185, SB 2207, SB 2252, SB 2361, SB 2365, SB 2368, SB 2405, SB 2411, SB 2420, SB 2425, SB 2569, SB 2717, SJR 36, SJR 50, SJR 39, SJR 63, SJR 68, SCR 12, SCR 39, SCR 38, SCR 37, SCR 42, SCR 29, SB 762, SB 1596, SB 62, SB 666, SB 847, SB 284, SB 854, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 1539, SB 1505, SB 583, SB 957, SB 1502, SB 507, SB 1026, SB 1349, SB 1433, SB 1434, SB 310, SB 505, SB 264, SB 1364, SB 1376, SB 1585, SB 1772, SB 2016, SB 1163, SB 619, SB 1122, SB 1877, SB 732, SB 731, SB 397, SB 508, SB 1333, SB 1436, SB 964, SB 287, SB 2143, SB 261, SB 1247, SB 1882, SB 618, SB 393, SB 2243, SB 2226, SB 1919, SB 1791, SB 22, SB 651, SB 1080, SB 826, SB 1079, SB 1243, SB 1504, SB 1851, SB 1879, SB 2237, SB 1257, SB 2034, SB 1522, SB 1151, SB 596, SB 1191, SB 226, SB 570, SB 870, SB 991, SB 60, SB 1401, SB 1728, SB 586, SB 529, SB 217, SB 209, SB 1923, SB 1839, SB 387, SB 1874, SB 1872, SB 1873, SB 1921, SB 1883, SB 1620, SB 1838, SB 2024, SB 2429, SB 1999, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 2166, SB 510, SB 33, SB 2420, SB 1860, SB 1541, SB 1314, SB 1398, SB 1869, SB 1750, SB 855, SB 1233, SB 2425, SB 2037, SB 1758, SB 1759, SB 2365, SB 1924, SB 1818, SB 1405, SB 1762, SB 1968, SB 1977, SB 2077, SB 2321, SB 1662, SB 1663, SB 2124, SB 2204, SB 1855, SB 863, SB 37, SB 819, SB 2078, SB 2252, SB 1962, SB 2253, SB 825, SB 1577, SB 1184, SB 2018, SB 2206, SB 1901, SB 1030, SB 2368, SB 1963, SB 1960, SB 1643, SB 1625, SB 1299, SB 841, SB 668, SB 584, SB 231, SB 2411, SB 1085, SB 2431, SB 2231, SB 1490, SB 530, SB 34, SB 1261, SB 552, SB 1099, SB 1646, SB 2180, SB 1804, SB 1937, SB 1936, SB 2569, SB 1372, SB 1208, SB 1124, SB 1506, SB 1806, SB 1868, SB 2361, SB 2314, SB 769, SB 1409, SB 2122, SB 434, SB 1214, SB 1951, SB 2183, SB 2046, SB 1667, SB 1870, SB 1727, SB 2405, SB 2127, SB 1975, SB 1760, SB 1734, SB 1335, SB 2066, SB 2129, SB 2246, SB 2439, SB 1624, SB 1244, SB 1468, SB 2717, SB 1612, SB 1262, SB 604, SB 2395, SB 2185, SB 1832, SB 1745, SB 1746, SB 2207, SB 2023, SB 1784, SB 1524, SB 626, SB 528, SB 437, SB 269, SB 1137, SB 968, SB 636, SB 747, SB 1325, SB 1789, SB 1455, SB 2056, SB 75, SB 1940, SB 2052, SB 1927, SB 2010, SB 1579, SB 2068, SB 3034, SB 844, SB 1920, SB 1177, SB 1558, SB 1236, SB 1044, SB 926, SB 884, SB 463, SB 331, SB 227, SB 240, SB 517, SB 1200, SB 1410, SB 1626, SB 1845, SB 1863, SB 2216, SB 2681, SB 1717, SB 2053, SB 546, SB 2141, SB 2949, SB 2323, SB 2200, SB 2332, SB 2199, SB 1642, SB 1150, SB 1757, SB 2050, SB 1138, SB 2051, SB 2626, SB 2458, SB 1864, SB 30, SB 2201, SB 1862, SB 1583, SB 1583, SB 1055, SB 2660, SB 1898, SB 2662, SB 2662, SB 2161, SB 2161, SB 2964, SB 2881, SB 1065, SB 1065, SB 801, SB 2743, SB 2533, SB 2533, SB 1413, SB 1413, SB 1, SB 34, SB 310, SB 819, SB 1030, SB 1124, SB 1208, SB 1233, SB 1333, SB 1405, SB 1541, SB 1750, SB 1758, SB 1869, SB 2078, SB 2365, SB 2411, SB 762, SB 33, SB 37, SB 505, SR 402, SR 409, SB 2695, SB 2695

Keywords: constitutional amendment, veto override, legislature power, governor, Texas Constitution, Texas, moving image industry, incentive program, film production, grant funding, job creation, economic development, wildfire, wildfire mitigation, wildfire prevention, volunteer fire department, Texas A&M Forest Service, West Texas A&M University, prescribed burning, fuel loading

Bills: SJR39, SB22, SB30, SB33, SB34, SB37, SB75, SB209, SB310, SB505, SB552, SB618, SB626, SB636, SB732, SB747, SB762, SB769, SB819, SB825, SB870, SB926, SB964, SB1030, SB1080, SB1099, SB1124, SB1177, SB1208, SB1233, SB1314, SB1325, SB1333, SB1405, SB1455, SB1506, SB1524, SB1541, SB1577, SB1579, SB1596, SB1646, SB1667, SB1727, SB1750, SB1758, SB1760, SB1791, SB1804, SB1806, SB1869, SB1923, SB1927, SB1951, SB1960, SB1962, SB2023, SB2024, SB2056, SB2078, SB2122, SB2129, SB2180, SB2183, SB2185, SB2207, SB2252, SB2361, SB2365, SB2368, SB2405, SB2411, SB2420, SB2425, SB2569, SB2717, SJR36, SJR50, SJR39, SJR63, SJR68, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR37, SCR42, SCR29, SB762, SB1596, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB1505, SB583, SB957, SB1502, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1433, SB1434, SB310, SB505, SB264, SB1364, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB619, SB1122, SB1877, SB732, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1333, SB1436, SB964, SB287, SB2143, SB261, SB1247, SB1882, SB618, SB393, SB2243, SB2226, SB1919, SB1791, SB22, SB651, SB1080, SB826, SB1079, SB1243, SB1504, SB1851, SB1879, SB2237, SB1257, SB2034, SB1522, SB1151, SB596, SB1191, SB226, SB570, SB870, SB991, SB60, SB1401, SB1728, SB586, SB529, SB217, SB209, SB1923, SB1839, SB387, SB1874, SB1872, SB1873, SB1921, SB1883, SB1620, SB1838, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB2166, SB510, SB33, SB2420, SB1860, SB1541, SB1314, SB1398, SB1869, SB1750, SB855, SB1233, SB2425, SB2037, SB1758, SB1759, SB2365, SB1924, SB1818, SB1405, SB1762, SB1968, SB1977, SB2077, SB2321, SB1662, SB1663, SB2124, SB2204, SB1855, SB863, SB37, SB819, SB2078, SB2252, SB1962, SB2253, SB825, SB1577, SB1184, SB2018, SB2206, SB1901, SB1030, SB2368, SB1963, SB1960, SB1643, SB1625, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB231, SB2411, SB1085, SB2431, SB2231, SB1490, SB530, SB34, SB1261, SB552, SB1099, SB1646, SB2180, SB1804, SB1937, SB1936, SB2569, SB1372, SB1208, SB1124, SB1506, SB1806, SB1868, SB2361, SB2314, SB769, SB1409, SB2122, SB434, SB1214, SB1951, SB2183, SB2046, SB1667, SB1870, SB1727, SB2405, SB2127, SB1975, SB1760, SB1734, SB1335, SB2066, SB2129, SB2246, SB2439, SB1624, SB1244, SB1468, SB2717, SB1612, SB1262, SB604, SB2395, SB2185, SB1832, SB1745, SB1746, SB2207, SB2023, SB1784, SB1524, SB626, SB528, SB437, SB269, SB1137, SB968, SB636, SB747, SB1325, SB1789, SB1455, SB2056, SB75, SB1940, SB2052, SB1927, SB2010, SB1579, SB2068, SB3034, SB844, SB1920, SB1177, SB1558, SB1236, SB1044, SB926, SB884, SB463, SB331, SB227, SB240, SB517, SB1200, SB1410, SB1626, SB1845, SB1863, SB2216, SB2681, SB1717, SB2053, SB546, SB2141, SB2949, SB2323, SB2200, SB2332, SB2199, SB1642, SB1150, SB1757, SB2050, SB1138, SB2051, SB2626, SB2458, SB1864, SB30, SB2201, SB1862, SB1583, SB1583, SB1055, SB2660, SB1898, SB2662, SB2662, SB2161, SB2161, SB2964, SB2881, SB1065, SB1065, SB801, SB2743, SB2533, SB2533, SB1413, SB1413, SB1, SB34, SB310, SB819, SB1030, SB1124, SB1208, SB1233, SB1333, SB1405, SB1541, SB1750, SB1758, SB1869, SB2078, SB2365, SB2411, SB762, SB33, SB37, SB505, SR402, SR409, SB2695, SB2695

Keywords: constitutional amendment, veto override, legislature power, governor, Texas Constitution, Texas, moving image industry, incentive program, film production, grant funding, job creation, economic development, wildfire, wildfire mitigation, wildfire prevention, volunteer fire department, Texas A&M Forest Service, West Texas A&M University, prescribed burning, fuel loading

Transcript Highlights:

• This is an intensity model that's modeled after other states that have... been successful with this,
• So could you speak to how the intensity-based model addresses some of the long... standing shortfalls
• The intensity model works because we're putting the money exactly where it's needed.
• Well that's the power behind the model and the changes inherent within the bill and just so thankful
• We've got a framework now with an intensity model and we know what areas we're looking at.

Bills: SJR 12, SJR 81, SCR 39, SB 22, SB 32, SB 241, SB 393, SB 414, SB 458, SB 464, SB 568, SB 583, SB 609, SB 660, SB 693, SB 731, SB 732, SB 746, SB 783, SB 785, SB 897, SB 993, SB 996, SB 1008, SB 1029, SB 1035, SB 1036, SB 1120, SB 1122, SB 1147, SB 1163, SB 1188, SB 1197, SB 1209, SB 1227, SB 1245, SB 1267, SB 1307, SB 1321, SB 1332, SB 1386, SB 1394, SB 1396, SB 1470, SB 1494, SB 1537, SB 1596, SB 1598, SB 1610, SB 1664, SB 1814, SB 1822, SB 1841, SB 1948, SB 2065, SB 2155, SB 2406, SB 2407, SJR 12, SJR 36, SJR 81, SJR 50, SJR 4, SCR 22, SCR 12, SCR 39, SB 765, SB 62, SB 666, SB 888, SB 687, SB 847, SB 1248, SB 504, SB 305, SB 296, SB 284, SB 241, SB 304, SB 1023, SB 204, SB 609, SB 670, SB 850, SB 854, SB 413, SB 1346, SB 1033, SB 1220, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 1539, SB 447, SB 1119, SB 1505, SB 1215, SB 1302, SB 583, SB 673, SB 681, SB 1172, SB 955, SB 957, SB 1120, SB 541, SB 266, SB 1415, SB 53, SB 1352, SB 785, SB 1450, SB 1502, SB 1566, SB 414, SB 1062, SB 711, SB 746, SB 1404, SB 1448, SB 507, SB 1026, SB 1349, SB 1355, SB 1433, SB 1434, SB 1596, SB 1403, SB 667, SB 1059, SB 1567, SB 310, SB 311, SB 505, SB 1209, SB 1210, SB 1470, SB 264, SB 1029, SB 1358, SB 1364, SB 1569, SB 1376, SB 1228, SB 519, SB 1350, SB 462, SB 827, SB 1585, SB 1396, SB 1484, SB 1273, SB 927, SB 1227, SB 1229, SB 1353, SB 1464, SB 1709, SB 1729, SB 1733, SB 1744, SB 1772, SB 1841, SB 1147, SB 1008, SB 2016, SB 1173, SB 1163, SB 996, SB 568, SB 1370, SB 1321, SB 1101, SB 860, SB 993, SB 693, SB 1610, SB 1537, SB 1332, SB 1307, SB 963, SB 493, SB 984, SB 619, SB 1122, SB 455, SB 522, SB 1057, SB 1239, SB 1254, SB 1255, SB 1259, SB 1341, SB 1664, SB 1877, SB 464, SB 1277, SB 32, SB 732, SB 660, SB 731, SB 921, SB 268, SB 1822, SB 1188, SB 1589, SB 397, SB 1058, SB 1036, SB 1267, SB 2112, SB 1930, SB 532, SB 1035, SB 2155, SB 508, SB 292, SB 291, SB 901, SB 1333, SB 1436, SB 1494, SB 964, SB 779, SB 1378, SB 2312, SB 1719, SB 1386, SB 287, SB 2143, SB 1245, SB 261, SB 1247, SB 1948, SB 2406, SB 2407, SB 1882, SB 1197, SB 1814, SB 618, SB 38, SB 393, SB 2065, SB 1371, SB 1394, SB 1365, SB 2243, SB 2226, SB 2039, SB 1919, SB 1895, SB 1598, SB 1493, SB 1810, SB 1791, SB 1706, SB 1644, SB 1238, SB 783, SB 458, SB 22, SB 651, SB 897, SB 1809, SB 1080, SB 745, SB 826, SB 989, SB 1320, SB 1437, SB 2320, SB 2289, SB 1171, SB 664, SB 1637, SB 2064, SB 868, SJR 40, SJR 27, SCR 38, SCR 37, SB 1079, SB 1243, SB 1504, SB 1851, SB 1879, SB 2237, SB 1257, SB 2034, SB 1522, SB 883, SB 249, SB 1318, SB 1151, SB 596, SB 1191, SB 226, SB 570, SB 870, SB 991, SB 60, SB 365, SB 1067, SB 1786, SB 326, SB 1401, SB 1592, SB 1728, SB 1265, SB 586, SB 529, SB 217, SB 209, SB 1923, SB 1559, SB 1839, SB 387, SB 1874, SB 1872, SB 1873, SB 1921, SB 1883, SB 1677, SB 95, SB 1620, SB 1838, SB 2024, SB 2429, SB 1999, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 2166, SB 871, SB 510, SB 33, SB 2420, SB 1860, SB 1541, SB 1316, SB 1314, SB 1313, SB 1426, SB 1398, SB 1869, SB 1750, SB 1871, SB 36, SB 855, SB 1233, SB 760, SB 2425, SB 2037, SB 1758, SB 1759, SB 2365, SB 1924, SB 762, SB 1271, SB 1818, SB 605, SB 1405, SB 1762, SB 1968, SB 1977, SB 2077, SB 2148, SB 2321, SB 1967, SB 1662, SB 1663, SB 2124, SB 2204

Keywords: parental rights, education, constitutional amendment, school choice, child education, tax exemption, ad valorem, tangible personal property, income production, border security, southern border, federal immigration policy, illegal immigration, cartels, transnational cartels, fentanyl, drug trafficking, human trafficking, Operation Lone Star, Texas border

Summary: The meeting primarily focused on educational reforms, particularly in special education funding. Notably, Senator Bettencourt laid out the transformative impacts of Senate Bill 568, which aims to lift a historical cap on special education funding that affected approximately 775,000 students. The discussions included plans for an intensity-based funding model that could ensure fair distribution of resources depending on individual needs, thereby enhancing educational support for diverse learning requirements. Senators acknowledged past failures in the special education framework, emphasizing the necessity of moving towards a system that is transparent and focused on delivering adequate services.

Transcript Highlights:

• I will say in my model of their choice.
• ownership is probably not their model. ownership is probably not their model.
• <00:13:09.160> are<00:13:09.320> not<00:13:09.560> only models are not only models
• 53.440> worker-owned looking at models of worker-owned looking at models of worker-owned cooperatives
• <00:25:44.600> has But more than that, the co-op model has But more than that, the co-op model

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Enforcement model. That's the only one. That is one model they could choose to participate in.
• Any or all of those models.
• ones were the jail force model and the warrant service officer model but the task force model is one
• Different counties have different participation models. models.
• in terms of the model?

Keywords: HCR65, HCR19, Senate resolutions, memorial, community impact, legislative proceedings

Summary: The recent Senate meeting primarily covered two resolutions, HCR65 and HCR19, both of which were passed unanimously with little to no opposition. HCR65 was introduced in memory of Tracy Lee Vincent of Longview, while HCR19 was presented to honor the late Terrell Lynn Roberts of Angleton. The meeting included brief addresses from several senators, who shared personal reflections on the impacts of the individuals being honored and expressed gratitude for their contributions to the community. This collaborative atmosphere showcased the members' capacity for camaraderie and respect, emphasizing the importance of human connection in legislative proceedings.

Transcript Highlights:

• An apprenticeship is a post-secondary education model that's very unique in many different ways.
• At the ABC model, we do charge the contractor members, so they're investing just like the state is in
• But, quite frankly, where we stand today, the biggest challenge we face is the funding model.
• So branching out beyond the skilled trades, the apprenticeship model is a great model... ...the skilled
• The apprenticeship model is a great model and one that can be applied to other programs. Thank you.

Summary: The Careers and Workforce Subcommittee met to discuss apprenticeship education and workforce development, with panelists from Santa Fe College, the Florida Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association, ABC East Coast/ABC Institute, and Piper Fire Protection. Members heard that apprenticeships are growing in Florida, with panelists emphasizing that these programs offer paid, tuition-free training, progressive wage increases, and strong job placement in high-demand fields such as HVAC, electrical, fire protection, and construction. Panelists also described efforts to expand into new areas like accounting, cybersecurity, network infrastructure, and surgical technology, while stressing the importance of aligning programs with employer demand. A major topic was funding and reimbursement. Panelists said the current model is complicated and often leaves providers with only a portion of the funds appropriated for apprentices, with one provider saying reimbursement can be as low as 44% and others describing caps, contract delays, and inconsistent CareerSource support. They argued that more of the money should reach training providers, that small businesses need more support to participate, and that transparency and contract reform could help expand enrollment and improve program quality. Several also raised barriers such as instructor approval rules, paperwork, and facility costs. Members asked about admission criteria, program costs, employer incentives, outreach to high school students, and whether apprenticeships should have greater access to other funding sources. Panelists said the main requirements are being employed and willing to work and learn, and that outreach through schools, career fairs, community partnerships, and public awareness campaigns is essential. They also discussed articulation agreements that can provide college credit for apprenticeship training and suggested statewide credit recognition and possible direct funding to providers as policy improvements. No votes were taken, and the meeting ended with the subcommittee adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• Has our state as a model employer initiative leveraged SEED at all?
• And the first one was to develop a Massachusetts as a model employer roadmap.
• Who are usually the players, like, for example, for state as a model employer, who engages with SEED?
• This state as a model employer program.
• You know, one thing I'm thinking when I think about youth and the state as model employer...

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Disability Employment Subcommittee met with roll call, approved prior meeting minutes, and shared an inspirational quote from Jane Goodall about the importance of every individual. Members then introduced themselves and their roles, including state disability advocates, providers, and commission members, before hearing a presentation from Katia Alpanis and Dina Klumkina of the State Exchange on Employment and Disability (SEED). SEED described its role as a technical assistance and policy resource for states, focused on sharing best practices and examples from other states to expand employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The presentation outlined SEED’s seven policy areas: career readiness and work-based learning, behavioral health and work, stay-at-work/return-to-work supports, employer recruitment and retention tools, entrepreneurship and disability-owned business development, interagency coordination, and state government as a model employer. Examples from other states included scholarship and transition supports in Kentucky and Virginia, stay-at-work programs in Alaska and Washington, accommodation funds in Minnesota, procurement and small business initiatives in New Jersey and Virginia, and model employer efforts in Colorado, New York, and Tennessee. Members also asked about digital accessibility and PEAT; SEED said PEAT has been refunded and that SEED can help with policy-level questions and peer examples, but not implementation of accessibility requirements. Discussion then shifted to possible Massachusetts projects. Members raised concerns about upcoming Medicaid work or civic engagement requirements and how people with disabilities might fall through the cracks, and they asked whether SEED could help Massachusetts use existing documentation, such as IEPs, to reduce barriers. The group identified two main areas for follow-up: a Massachusetts “state as a model employer” roadmap and a youth/young adult employment and volunteer pipeline, potentially linked to transition services and apprenticeship opportunities. SEED agreed to provide Massachusetts-specific analysis and two briefs, one on career readiness policies and one on state-as-model-employer strategies, and the subcommittee planned an offline follow-up meeting to narrow priorities and develop a scope of work.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:41:54.079> of supporting the county model of supporting the county model of delivering
• prescription drug manu management model prescription drug manu management model authorizing<01:03
• for service carve out management models for service carve out management models have<01:05:34.240
• Kentucky switched to a transparent model with a single PBM.
• model over here, you can take rebates in model over here, you can take rebates in the<01:18:50.159>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• They shouldn't be constrained to use a low model if it's yielding an unlikely result.
• PML, including what percentages they use from the different models to arrive at their PML.
• Senate Bill 2571 seeks to reform TWIA's funding sources by creating a dynamic funding model.
• We have done that under this model, specifically under SB2571 with a dynamic... funding model.
• Stacking of the funding dynamic funding model. Questions of the author? All right.

Bills: SB1468, SB1612, SB1789, SB2530, SB2571, SB2717, SB2967

Keywords: utility systems, Texas A&M, regents authority, construction, improvement, construction contracts, trust funds, property rights, mechanics lien, contractors, trustee liability, mechanic's lien, liability, attorney's fees, windstorm insurance, Texas Windstorm Insurance Association, insurance regulation, administrative penalties, coastal counties, catastrophe year

Transcript Highlights:

• And as I mentioned, this model is receiving national recognition, and we think it's a model going forward
• That's part of the evidence and fidelity to that model.
• And that was the biggest cornerstone of our accountability model.
• Acceleration—it was very challenging under the previous models to look That accountability model for
• model, acceleration was very challenging under the previous model to look at dual enrollment.

Summary: The committee met to hear an overview of the Appropriations Committee on Criminal and Civil Justice budget area and then received performance-measure presentations from the Department of Corrections, the Commission on Offender Review, and the Department of Juvenile Justice. Staff reviewed the roughly $7.4 billion criminal justice and judiciary budget, noting major funding areas such as corrections, law enforcement, victim services, courts, and due process, along with recent investments in prison health care, security equipment, fentanyl enforcement, court staffing, and juvenile justice salaries and education programs. Secretary Dixon of the Department of Corrections described staffing and population pressures, including growth in inmate population, overtime-driven deficits, and the opening of additional housing units. He emphasized the department’s use of performance measures and highlighted reforms such as incentivized prisons, administrative management units, reentry planning, faith-based programs, and expanded education and vocational training. Members asked about teacher hiring, public defender pay parity, fentanyl funding, staffing capacity, and the role of the National Guard; Dixon said teacher vacancies had improved, public defenders had received comparable pay increases, fentanyl funding would be addressed further by FDLE, and the Guard had helped stabilize staffing. The Commission on Offender Review reported on parole, conditional release, addiction recovery supervision, and revocations, saying its recidivism/success rates had improved over a three-year measurement period. Senator Rouson pressed the commission on clemency and pardons, saying that work was omitted from the presentation and asking for backlog and case data; the commission said it did not have those figures on hand and would follow up. The committee also discussed a conditional medical release pilot study, and members questioned the report’s conclusion that no suitable elderly inmate population could be identified, asking what criteria were used and whether stakeholders were consulted. Secretary Hall of the Department of Juvenile Justice outlined the agency’s prevention-to-residential continuum and its emphasis on education, data-driven decision-making, and evidence-based programming. He said salary increases had reduced vacancies, juvenile arrests and residential commitments had fallen sharply over time, and tools such as civil citations, risk assessments, and quality-improvement reviews were being used to guide placements and services. Hall also described the department’s use of dashboards, monthly data check-ins, and the dispositional matrix to improve outcomes and reduce recidivism.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, and we really truly believe that this insurance model is the appropriate model so that it wouldn't
• your model of insurance agency. your model of insurance agency.
• <01:26:01.679> Other of model would have to exit. Other of model would have to exit.
• to which model should be allowable. to which model should be allowable.
• It's not our model. It would not allow our model to exist, right?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee continued work on Senate Bill 297 and a new amendment dealing with pooled risk management programs and whether they should be regulated under the insurance department. Lisa Duket, executive director of SchoolCare, testified at length that the draft language could allow co-mingling of public entity risk funds, could trigger producer-licensing requirements for staff who are not actually brokers, and may not fit public entity risk pools because they are not insurance companies. She also raised concerns about the March 1 reporting deadline, the proposed uniform accounting language, aggregate excess insurance, examination costs being charged to the program, and confidentiality provisions that she argued may conflict with right-to-know principles for public entities. She urged the committee to slow down and consider a study committee or more time for review, saying the regulated entities were not adequately involved in drafting the proposal. Chairman Hunt and the department responded that the bill is intended to create a licensure-based regulatory model, similar to other licensed industries, and that the pooled risk management program would be exempt from producer licensing while anyone else selling or negotiating such coverage would need a producer license. The department said failure to comply would be handled through an administrative licensing process, with denial or nonrenewal of a license and appeal through the department process. On the reporting deadline, the department said March 1 is a standard filing date used for financial analysis and that the filing can be the most recent annual report, regardless of fiscal year end. They also explained that the confidentiality language was taken from existing RSA 5B, that aggregate excess insurance was included as a solvency measure, and that the draft was intended to preserve familiar language while adapting it for pooled risk programs. The discussion did not include a final vote or formal action on the bill in the portion provided. The committee appeared to be compiling follow-up questions for the insurance department and considering whether additional revisions or a slower process would be needed before moving the bill forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'm looking at three different models: a fixed funding model, which basically would pull the MD program
• follow the Utah model, I don't care which one of these you take.
• So that we don't then build a model.
• Yeah, so switching to an FTE model with one amount for everyone, this...
• Switching to an FTE model with one amount for everyone, this is like a...

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Higher Education Funding Committee met to discuss possible changes to North Dakota’s higher education funding formula, with a particular focus on separating the UND School of Medicine and Health Sciences MD program from the general formula. Dr. Jenkins outlined several options for the MD program, including a fixed-funding model, a hybrid model, or keeping it in the formula, and emphasized the need to preserve strong support for medical education while making future funding clearer. He also discussed efforts to increase the share of North Dakota students in the MD program through ND85, expanded recruiting, early acceptance pathways, MCAT prep, a four-plus-one program, and the Primary Care Accelerated Track, along with future cost pressures such as AI licensing and residency growth. The committee then reviewed a simplified funding model from the University System Office that would base funding more heavily on student FTE, credentials awarded, and a few incentive factors such as small institution and research adjustments. Members questioned the use of placeholder numbers, the lack of a clear methodology for the small institution and research factors, and whether the model would adequately account for differences among institutions, high-cost programs, and graduate education. Several members raised concerns that arbitrary factors would be hard to defend politically and could distort funding or create competition between schools, while others said the exercise was useful as a starting point for discussion. Alex presented a second alternative that kept the current SIP-code structure but increased CTE weighting, added a progressive economic size factor, and separated out the MD program. His model also added an on-campus face-to-face headcount component and a credentials component, with the intent of rewarding in-person enrollment and completions. Members questioned the use of headcount instead of FTE, how hybrid, online, dual-credit, and off-campus students would be treated, and why face-to-face enrollment was weighted more heavily than completion. No formal votes or final actions were taken; the committee instead continued discussion and asked members to provide direction on which elements, if any, should be developed further.

Transcript Highlights:

• Counties to work together to develop a new rural county-based model for delivering Minnesota health care
• The counties have developed models that directly address those local perspectives.
• staff. and working with the county model staff. and working with the county model for<00:03:07.440
• competition would be eliminated for MCOs and counties that choose the KARMA model.
• competition would be eliminated for MCOs and counties that choose the KARMA model.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The average model teacher salaries are increased by 12% compared to current average model teacher salaries
• 00:07:38.080> are average model teacher salaries are average model teacher salaries are increased
• , some adjustments throughout the model, some adjustments throughout the model, but<00:23:58.799>
• the model suggests. the model suggests.
• Recalibration is recosting of the model. >> Recalibration is recosting of the model.

Bills: SF0059, SF0053

Keywords: language proficiency, literacy education, reading interventions, dyslexia support, Montessori methods, individualized reading plans, amateur status, high school athletics, student eligibility, sports regulation, monetary compensation, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• year 2025, the only model year to which the rule applies.
• year 2025, which is the only model year to which the rule applies.
• That is just nine model years away.
• <00:21:20.400> of for the six months that this model of for the six months that this model
• the people start buying the 26 model the people start buying the 26 model year<00:24:22.120>

Keywords: 1183, house