Transcript Highlights:

• court case just to know. court case just to know.
• <00:35:23.359> Can't actually a liel case or slander.
• Can't actually a liel case or slander. Can't remember<00:35:23.920> which.
• investigation case? investigation case?
• <00:58:43.040> and when you involve like the YDC cases and when you involve like the YDC cases

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee held a work session on HB 313, a bill dealing with non-public sessions and when a person discussed in such a session should be notified or allowed to request that the meeting be open. The chair opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and invited public comment before committee discussion. The main public testimony came from Phil Jaru, who described a personal dispute with local officials and said the bill should ensure people are notified when they are being discussed in closed session and can request an open meeting. He also argued for limits on non-public sessions, saying they should not be used for matters outside the board’s authority or for what he characterized as gossip, while also trying to avoid interfering with investigations. Committee members focused on the practical and legal problems with the proposal. Several members questioned whether a person should have a right to attend, to demand an open meeting, or simply to receive notice, and whether that right should apply before the meeting or only once the discussion begins. Members raised concerns about situations involving multiple people, children, victims, or other confidentiality interests, and whether a request to open the meeting could conflict when one person wants openness and another wants privacy. One member suggested the bill may be too broad and proposed narrowing it to simple advance notification, possibly by email, rather than an automatic right to open the meeting. The discussion also touched on existing law governing non-public sessions, including the narrow “reputation” exception and Supreme Court cases interpreting it. Members noted that the current statute already limits non-public discussion to the matters stated in the motion, and some suggested that if the concern is boards using non-public sessions for unrelated discussion, that issue may be better addressed by clarifying the existing statute rather than expanding the bill. No vote or final action was taken; the committee appeared to continue working through possible amendments and whether the bill should be narrowed to notification or a right to attend rather than a right to force the meeting open.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think in time that has been the case.
• And this is in the best case scenario.
• That might not be entirely the case.
• It very well could be the same FEMA.gov the case and it is often the case that there are traditional
• One of my big frustrations not just in the case of charter schools but just in the case of traditional

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• At 15, this juvenile was able to be charged with murder in the robbery case, but not in the case where
• And in some extreme cases, names may need to be tracked longer than 60 days.
• In some cases, information may develop after the 60 days.
• An officer arrests someone in a case on January 1st of 2025.
• An officer arrests someone in a case on January 1st of 2025.

Summary: The Senate convened with opening prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and several recognitions and introductions, including guests from Miami Northwestern Senior High School, Clay County, and a moment of silence for Pope Francis. The chamber then took up a motion to reconsider the prior day’s failed vote on CS for SB 1080 (local government land regulation), which was adopted without objection, and moved into the special order calendar. A series of bills were debated and mostly passed, often after substituting House companions. Measures approved included funding for expedited DNA testing grants, additional aggravating factors in capital cases, fertility preservation coverage for cancer patients, commuter rail indemnification, migrant vessel disposition, specialty license plates, an Alzheimer’s and dementia awareness campaign, relocation of the Council on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys to Florida Memorial University, charter school changes, sexual offender registration updates, utility worker assault/battery penalties, juvenile justice revisions, student mental health outcome reporting, foster home licensure transfers, water access facilities, Florida Virtual School changes, school readiness resources for children with disabilities, sexual images/child exploitation penalties, tampering with electronic monitoring devices, certified recovery residences, the FSU Election Law Center, the Office of Faith and Community, and bonuses for county tax collector/property appraiser employees. Several bills were temporarily postponed, including measures on social media use by minors, veterans’ nursing homes, Parkinson’s disease, mental health and substance use disorders, education, educator preparation, benefits for certain officers injured in the line of duty, school social workers, and brownfields. Debate centered on public safety, health care access, education, recovery housing, and government administration. Some of the most substantive discussion came on the Office of Faith and Community bill, where an amendment to bar political activity by office staff was offered and defeated after extended debate over election-related communications and the proper scope of existing ethics laws. The certified recovery residences bill also drew extensive support and testimony about addiction recovery and housing stability. Most bills passed on strong bipartisan votes, with a few receiving notable opposition, including the charter schools bill, the aggravating factors bill, and the Office of Faith and Community bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Life expectancy is considered in these cases. God bless you.
• But that’s not always the case.
• If there is no notice, this dog will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
• In this particular case, Pam was a mail carrier.
• So it doesn't go against any case law, for sure.

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard Senate Bill 1272 on guardianship, which would limit a guardian’s ability to isolate an adult ward from family and require notice of major events such as a ward’s death or relocation to a more restrictive setting. Senator Jones and supportive speakers said the bill was intended to protect wards from abuse and isolation by bad actors, while still preserving good-faith guardianship. With no opposition testimony or debate, the committee voted 8-0 to report the bill favorably. The committee then considered CS for Senate Bill 1284, which would expand Florida’s Wrongful Death Act to allow civil claims for the death of an unborn child. An amendment was adopted to define “unborn child” as a member of the species Homo sapiens carried in the womb and to state that the act does not authorize claims against the mother or against health care providers acting within the lawful standard of care. The bill drew extensive debate and testimony. Supporters argued it would give parents parity and fuller damages, including economic losses and mental anguish, when negligence causes the death of an unborn child. Opponents, including the ACLU, medical professionals, and reproductive rights advocates, warned it could be used to target abortion care, increase malpractice exposure, worsen physician shortages, and create speculative damages. The committee approved the bill 6-4. Finally, the committee took up Senate Bill 1288 on parental rights, with a strike-all amendment that would strengthen parental control over minors’ medical decisions, surveys, and biofeedback devices, while adding exceptions for emergencies, court orders, certain legal statuses, and situations involving abuse or out-of-home placement. Supporters said the measure restores parents as primary decision-makers and protects children from inappropriate questioning or treatment without consent. Opponents argued it could block minors from confidential care for STIs, mental health, or abuse-related issues, and could chill school and medical screenings. The transcript ends during testimony and debate on this bill, before any final vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• I wish that could be the case for all your people.
• But I did read this case, so I knew enough.
• I believe that in many cases, they do have room.
• I believe that in many cases, they do have room.
• In some cases, they have small businesses.

Summary: The Senate opened with a quorum, prayer, and the Pledge of Allegiance, then read an amended joint proclamation expanding the special session call to include financial penalties for government officials, criminal penalties for offenses committed by illegal aliens, and programs and appropriations to support law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. No committee reports, governor’s messages, or House messages were on the desk before the chamber moved to the special order calendar. The main item was Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2B, the immigration bill, along with a late-filed strike-all amendment by Senator Gruters. Gruters said the amendment aligned terminology with federal law, increased penalties for crimes by unauthorized aliens, added transnational crime organizations to gang definitions, required stronger participation in the federal 287(g) program, created financial penalties for noncompliance, offered a $1,000 bonus for officers assisting ICE in large operations, directed more information-sharing with federal agencies, and barred DHSMV from issuing licenses or IDs to unauthorized aliens. He framed the bill as supporting President Trump’s immigration agenda and focusing on criminal illegal aliens rather than street-level enforcement. A long question-and-answer period followed, with Senators Polsky, Pizzo, Smith, Jones, Roscoe, Berman, and others pressing the sponsor on scope, legality, costs, and implementation. Questions focused on whether the bill would require participation beyond jails and detention centers, whether schools or churches could be affected, liability and immunity for local agencies, the size and purpose of the proposed appropriations, and the impact on undocumented students receiving in-state tuition waivers. Gruters and Senator Fine said the 287(g) provisions were intended to apply to jails and detention facilities, that green-card holders and lawful residents would not be affected, and that the tuition waiver repeal would end discounted tuition for students in the country illegally while not affecting their ability to attend. Fine also defended the mandatory death penalty provision for certain capital offenses committed by illegal immigrants, acknowledging it would likely be challenged in court but arguing the bill was designed to test and advance the policy. No final vote or other action on the bill is reflected in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a case of nuance.
• This is a case of nuance. And so these. This is a case of nuance.
• This is a case happened, which we deny.
• That's the case.
• anyone related to this case. anyone related to this case.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The commission heard argument on a renewed motion to compel discovery and related sanctions in an ethics case. Enforcement counsel said the respondent had provided incomplete and inconsistent discovery responses, including no authenticated medical records, and asked the commission to compel full interrogatory answers, bar the respondent from relying on unsupported medical claims at hearing, allow subpoenas for medical records and an LRC report, and continue the December 2 hearing. Respondent’s counsel replied that the defense had complied with discovery, that medical records were being withheld for reasons previously discussed, and that no outstanding discovery remained. The next matter was enforcement counsel’s motion in limine, which sought to exclude a wide range of evidence as irrelevant to the three ethics charges already found to have probable cause. Counsel argued the hearing should focus only on whether the respondent intimidated Fox’s, offered a favor in exchange for a donation, and engaged in inappropriate conduct while intoxicated in his office, and not on complainants’ motives, media coverage, bullying, religious discrimination claims, LRC policies, or other legislators’ conduct. He also argued that any claim of mental or physical condition should be excluded absent supporting medical proof. Respondent’s counsel opposed the motion, saying the excluded topics went to witness credibility, bias, motive, and context, and that LRC materials and testimony from additional witnesses were important to the defense. Commission members questioned both sides about the breadth of the motion in limine and whether any topics could be agreed to as irrelevant. Counsel for the respondent maintained that some challenged topics, including Lexington media coverage and broader legislative practices, were relevant to credibility and context. Enforcement counsel responded that even if such conduct were common, it would not excuse a violation of the ethics code. No final ruling or vote was announced in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Families and victims in the case of child abuse.
• Case, and I think it is.
• In that case, that is the Air Force.
• In either case, this is a very long time.
• A case-dependent answer as each site has different needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• He said that in the Town of Reed case, the U.S.
• that is prior to that there was a case that is prior to that there was a case called<00:55:24.839
• <00:55:59.280> they okay but in the Minnesota case they okay but in the Minnesota case they
• But there probably are extreme cases where an article of clothing could be distracting.
• But there probably are extreme cases where an article of clothing could be distracting.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In both cases, it does come from the ratepayers.
• So it's, you know, I've seen that account work in practice in some cases.
• There are some cases where it is, there's some cases where there isn't.
• In the case of EV chargers, it's $26 per year.
• And if that were the case, we would be very happy to support this bill.

Summary: The committee heard several energy, water, and utility bills. SB 919 by Senator Grayson would extend the biomethane monetary incentive program through 2030 and authorize additional funding to support renewable natural gas projects by reducing interconnection costs. Supporters said high interconnection costs and the current tax treatment are major barriers to methane reduction projects; opponents, including TURN and environmental groups, raised ratepayer cost concerns and objected to rate-basing and additional public funding. The author said amended language would remove the rate-basing provisions and instead urge the CPUC to act quickly on its pending decision. SB 931 by Senator Laird would reauthorize the Community Impact Mitigation Program for the Diablo Canyon plant through 2030 to continue funding local emergency preparedness, fire protection, public safety, and school district costs. The County of San Luis Obispo and labor groups supported the bill, while TURN opposed it as a statewide ratepayer subsidy that could be funded from existing PG&E revenues instead of higher rates. Members discussed the bill in the context of the 2022 Diablo Canyon extension deal and the possibility of a future longer extension. SB 1215 by Senator Cortese would direct the CPUC to set deployment targets for EV charging in multifamily housing and evaluate progress, with amendments aimed at affordability and limiting system upgrade costs. Supporters said renters are largely locked out of home charging and that prior utility programs proved cost-effective; no opposition testified. SB 1359 by Senator Stern would require more deliberate CPUC review before major gas system investments, emphasizing electrification and non-pipeline alternatives. Gas utilities and several industry groups opposed it, arguing it could undermine the obligation to serve, create safety and reliability risks, and change the regulatory compact. The committee also heard SB 1125 by Senator Menjivar, presented by Senator Gonzalez, which would establish a statewide low-income water rate assistance program upon appropriation. Water agencies, environmental groups, and local governments supported the measure, while one member expressed concern that it lacked a funding source and could not overcome Proposition 218 limits; the bill was moved to Appropriations and the roll was left open. Finally, SB 1098 by Senator Perez would restrict the use of long-running memorandum and balancing accounts by investor-owned utilities, require exceptional circumstances for new accounts, and add sunset and cost-sharing requirements. Consumer advocates and large energy users supported tighter oversight, while the utilities and business groups opposed the bill as too rigid and potentially harmful to flexibility for wildfire, emergency, and safety-related costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• We do feel like that’s the case. We’ve had some discussions.
• But in this case, for Workforce Pell, you would. And that creates a lot of complexities.
• In the case of the ESL literacy program, state funding will completely run out June 30th.
• And in many cases, they're already working with private immigration attorneys. Thank you.
• But I think you’re not saying that that’s the case.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm a social worker, case manager for a long time.
• I know that there has been one test case, one single case, with the Court of Appeals here in Missouri
• on a products liability case.
• I'm not familiar with what would be the case if that were to happen.
• I'm talking about high schools in particular in this case.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• these cases have already been pled down. these cases have already been pled down.
• Does this section only apply to cases Does this section only apply to cases where<00:16:44.959><
• case? Nice to see you, Senator, as well. case? Nice to see you, Senator, as well.
• That that's certainly the case.
• That that's certainly the case.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In some cases, it makes sense to move it. In some cases, it might make sense to keep it on site.
• It's not in many cases.
• New Mexico Office of the State Engineer is willing to reconsider the use of dual-screened wells on a case-by-case
• New Mexico Office of the State Engineer is willing to reconsider the use of dual-screened wells on a case-by-case
• we're very positive about that opening. is willing to reconsider the use of dual-screened wells on a case-by-case

Summary: The committee first heard a presentation from the Environment Department on PFAS contamination in private wells in La Cienega, Santa Fe County. Staff said the plume likely came from historic use of firefighting foam associated with airport and National Guard fire-training activities, with possible additional contribution from septic systems and consumer products. They described the contamination as affecting about 200 private wells, the short-term response of providing residential filters through a $2 million legislative appropriation, and ongoing work to define the plume’s full extent, identify responsible parties, and consider longer-term regional water solutions. Members asked about filter costs, replacement schedules, disposal of used cartridges, follow-up testing, health studies, and whether cleanup or containment had begun; the department said cleanup would follow once the plume is fully mapped and that DOH is soliciting interest in a blood study. The committee also discussed the need to track disposal of PFAS filters and the possibility of broader statewide capacity for similar work. The committee then took up abandoned uranium mine cleanup. NMED and EMNRD staff reviewed the new uranium mine reclamation program created by HB 164, the state dashboard tracking sites, and the FY26 appropriation of $20 million for neglected contaminated sites, of which $12 million is being used for neglected uranium mines and the remainder for other contaminated sites. They said six contractors were hired, three priority sites in Grant County are moving forward quickly, and additional sites are being prepared for possible FY27 work. Members pressed for details on how funds are spent, why the revolving fund remains unfunded, how federal, state, tribal, and landowner requirements are coordinated, where contaminated material will be moved, and whether cleanup could also address homes built with contaminated materials. Staff said the work is governed by multiple regulatory layers, that the state is seeking an additional $25 million for FY27-FY28 plus a time extension, and that partnerships with tribes would require longer-term agreements. The committee also discussed federal cleanup efforts and the new Good Samaritan law, with members urging stronger advocacy for New Mexico sites, including tribal lands, and asking whether the Attorney General should pursue legal action against federal parties responsible for legacy contamination. Staff explained that some sites are already covered by settlement funds tied to responsible parties, while neglected sites are those with no responsible party and no other cleanup program. The committee then heard from EMNRD on Class VI carbon sequestration primacy. Staff said New Mexico currently has no operating Class VI wells, about 27 Class II acid-gas injection wells are operating, and only a small number might be candidates for conversion. They explained that the state’s primacy application would require more public outreach than federal rules alone, and that cost estimates for post-injection site care are based on long planning horizons, with some costs borne by operators and some by the state after closure. No votes were taken on the substantive items discussed; the committee approved the prior meeting minutes and took a brief recess between presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• a refund if the property becomes uninhabitable for a certain number of days, 30 in this particular case
• Property becomes uninhabitable for a certain number of days, 30 in this particular case.
• the past two years have been very, very busy in their districts, you know, handling some of these cases
• They set up, in many cases, at the FEMA sites for people.
• In fact, I know of a couple of cases after Adalia where a property appraiser laughingly told me he was

Summary: The Committee on Finance and Tax met with a quorum present and heard a presentation from Lissette Kelly of the Department of Revenue’s Property Tax Oversight Office on property tax relief for catastrophic events. Kelly reviewed existing statutory relief for homestead, non-homestead, commercial, and agricultural property owners, including extended rebuild timelines, preservation of homestead exemption during rehabilitation, agricultural classification protections, and the catastrophic event refund program for residential property that becomes uninhabitable. She also explained the refund process, the roles of property appraisers and tax collectors, and prior legislative reimbursements to local governments after storms such as Ian, Nicole, and Idalia. Members asked about how portability works if a homeowner chooses not to rebuild, and Kelly said she would follow up with more detail. Senator Bernard also asked how residents learn about the refund application, and Kelly said property appraisers and tax collectors actively notify affected owners, including through mailings, FEMA and Red Cross sites, public service announcements, and outreach at community events. She said the property appraisers take the lead in promoting the program, with tax collectors also helping direct taxpayers to apply. The chair noted that staff will distribute the department’s guide to offices before hurricane season and said the committee’s next meeting, during the first week of session, will focus on property taxes more broadly. Kelly said the department would be willing to review the process further and bring suggestions if needed. No votes were taken on legislation, and the committee adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, even in the best case scenario, However, even in the best case scenario, we<00:27:02.680>
• <01:26:33.240> agreement Is this where a single case agreement Is this where a single case
• And those we do on a case-by-case basis and a one-off, very specifically because the rules related to
• <01:29:36.080> basis those we do on a a case-by-case basis those we do on a a case-by-case
• <01:54:23.560> particularly cases, particularly cases, particularly around around around caretaker

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill is very mindful of Section 230, is very mindful of the court case that's... ...the court cases
• The case was led by our California... ...guilty of being a monopoly.
• The case was led by our California AG and 30 other states.
• We are allowing that in that case.
• That's going to happen because of that court case.

Summary: The committee heard AB 1988, which would require AI companion chatbots to respond to credible self-harm or violence-related crisis expressions by displaying the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, warning users, and pausing the chat for human review after repeated crisis signals. The author and supporters said the bill is a measured safety standard to redirect vulnerable users to human help, citing research and cases where chatbots worsened suicidal ideation or violent behavior. Support came from crisis and medical advocates, while no opposition testimony was offered. The chair and members expressed strong support, and the bill was held pending quorum before later action on the agenda. The committee then took up AB 1709, which would set a minimum age of 16 for users to create or maintain accounts on social media platforms with harmful addictive features and would create an E-Safety Advisory Commission in the Attorney General’s office. The author argued the bill targets product design, not speech, and is intended to curb compulsive features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, and algorithmic feeds while allowing safer or non-addictive platforms to remain available. Supporters, including a psychologist and the Organization for Social Media Safety, described cyberbullying, predation, compulsive use, and mental health harms; opponents, including EFF, ACLU-Cal Action, TechNet, and youth advocacy groups, warned about privacy, First Amendment, and access-to-community concerns, especially for LGBTQ youth and other marginalized groups. Committee members debated whether the bill is a ban or a delay, how age assurance would work, and whether the proposal would be effective or could push youth to less safe spaces. Several members said they would support the bill as a first step, while others raised concerns about enforceability, privacy, and constitutional issues. The author emphasized that the bill is limited to specific harmful design features, not content or general internet access, and that the new commission would monitor evolving technology and recommend future updates. No final vote was taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we're going to let the judge who knows each individual case make these decisions on a case-by-case
• So, we're going to let the judge who knows each individual case make these decisions on a case-by-case
• So, we're going to let the judge who knows each individual case make these decisions on a case-by-case
• So, we're going to let the judge who knows each individual case make these decisions on a case-by-case
• So, we're going to let the judge who knows each individual case make these decisions on a case-by-case

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• One of their first test cases online.
• Now in for these things in rate cases.
• c> are rate cases uh we are rate cases uh we are responding<00:27:10.240> to<00:27:10.640>
• ,<00:32:26.320> you we're paying in a lot of cases, you we're paying in a lot of cases, you
• own or in the case of a school district. own or in the case of a school district.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , Center found that five of those cases, Center found that five of those cases, five<00:10:41.519
• <00:31:06.960> of happen not just in the cases of happen not just in the cases of seclusion
• And is cases for um older students.
• And in many cases, we do, and it helps us make the system better.
• And in many cases, we do, and it helps us make the system better.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Seclusion Working Group approved the minutes from its November 5, 2025 meeting and then heard presentations from Jessica Heiser and Aaron Sansmark of Solutions Not Suspensions and the Minnesota Disability Law Center on the misuse and illegal use of seclusion in schools. They described illegal seclusion as including use outside emergencies, for discipline or noncompliance, beyond the emergency period, in unregistered rooms, without parent notice, without required observation or documentation, for students outside the grade-limit rules, when meals/restroom/water are withheld, or when staff are not properly trained. They emphasized that Minnesota lacks a single reliable data source for identifying illegal seclusion and that families often learn about incidents late, if at all, making complaints and legal action difficult because of barriers such as time, cost, language, and access to advocates. The presenters summarized Minnesota Disability Law Center records, saying they receive about one seclusion-related case per month during the school year, statewide, and that in the cases reviewed over the last year the children were all boys with disabilities, including autism, ADHD, developmental delay, or emotional disabilities; three were white and two were children of color, and four of the five were age 10 or younger. They said all of those families pulled their children from school afterward, and that five of five cases potentially had valid illegal-seclusion claims, though only three pursued legal action. They also noted PACER reports many discipline and behavior calls involving seclusion but does not keep hard records. The presenters proposed better statewide data collection, including identifying school buildings, staff, or students involved, reporting incident duration, and adding a checkbox on MDE complaints to flag restraint/seclusion allegations. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on disproportionality. The presenters cited national research showing students with disabilities and students of color, especially Black boys, are disproportionately restrained or secluded, while acknowledging Minnesota does not have a single statewide racial aggregate for seclusion. Members discussed whether banning seclusion would reduce misuse and disproportionality, whether it could increase physical holds or injuries, and whether the issue should be viewed in the broader context of emergency interventions. Heiser argued Minnesota is moving in the same direction as federal actions and other states that have restricted or banned seclusion, and noted that the current birth-through-third-grade ban has reportedly reduced seclusion by 40%. Other members agreed disproportionality is a serious systemwide problem, but emphasized the need to keep the conversation focused on seclusion and emergency use. No additional votes or formal actions were taken beyond approval of the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• I was very honored to indict the first ever criminal wage-fixing case.
• Um during my criminal wage fixing case.
• Um, we filed a case against uh children.
• :23.440> Amazon<00:43:24.359> drivers, last case with the Amazon drivers, last case with
• Last year, we had a case where a fixed.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all