Transcript Highlights:

• administering the contract.
• Has she repudiated the contract there?
• “Okay, and did that result in a signed contract?”
• I met him through our contracting process. Thank you. I met him through our contracting process.
• This is another contract between AOC and AEJG... This is another contract between AOC and AEJG.

Summary: The hearing opened in a Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings matter involving Legislative Ethics Board complaint 2025-5 against Representative Tara Simmons. The ALJ outlined the process, the issues on appeal, and the burden of proof, which centered on whether Simmons violated the Ethics Act by using her legislative position for others’ benefit and by holding outside employment that conflicted with her duties, and what sanction would be appropriate. Several exhibits were admitted by stipulation or without objection, while Exhibit 2 was initially held for later ruling but was ultimately admitted after testimony from the witness who prepared it. The board also granted a motion to sequester witnesses and took under advisement a motion to exclude three defense witnesses until after the staff case-in-chief. In opening statements, board staff alleged Simmons violated RCW 42.52.020 and RCW 42.52.070 by sponsoring a proviso that benefited her outside employer, Equity and Education Coalition (EEC), by using campaign surplus funds to help hire a friend, by intervening in a dispute over the proviso-funded work, and by sending text messages to influence others. Staff said it would seek penalties of up to $5,000 per violation plus costs. Defense counsel argued the allegations were technical ethics issues, denied Simmons profited personally, and contended the proviso funding her employer was permitted under prior board guidance; counsel also argued the campaign donation and later contract dispute were lawful and context-dependent. The first witness, Kimberly Gordon of American Equity and Justice Group (AEJG), testified that AEJG received state proviso funding and donations from Simmons, including $10,000 and later $40,000, which Gordon said were intended to fund the hiring of Antoine Coleman, Simmons’s romantic partner. Gordon said AEJG returned the donations and terminated Coleman after learning of the relationship and potential conflict of interest. She also testified about a later 2024 proviso involving EEC, a subcontract between AEJG and EEC, and a dispute over EEC’s performance under that subcontract. Gordon said AEJG raised concerns with the Administrative Office of the Courts, met with contract manager Chris Stanley, and ultimately rewrote the subcontract after Stanley, allegedly after speaking with Simmons, directed them to do so. The hearing then recessed for lunch, and cross-examination of Gordon was set to continue afterward.

Transcript Highlights:

• for two of our marketing contracts.
• increases for two of our marketing contracts.
• Current contract value is $2.8 million.
• I respectfully ask for your approval of these two contracts.
• And so this contract is an up-to amount.

Summary: The committee first heard a fiscal status statement from the Office of Planning and Budget showing that updated Revenue Estimating Conference forecasts reduced the FY26 general fund excess available from $292.6 million to $179.7 million, with lower revenues across the five-year baseline and larger out-year imbalances. With no questions, the statement was approved. Members then reviewed several Facility Planning and Control items, including approval of a new $3 million LSU Health Sciences Center project in New Orleans funded by self-generated revenues, a $343,600 increase for HVAC upgrades at the Louisiana War Veterans Home in Jackson, and a $700,000 increase for Southern University’s A.A. Leno Law Center addition. The committee also received informational change-order reports and approved Louisiana Economic Development contract extensions for Zender Communications and Graham Group, as well as a Department of Education contract amendment for the Louisiana Gator ESA program with Odyssey after questions about the contract’s up-to amount and procurement process. The Sabine River Authority sought approval for a $9.5 million increase to its operating budget and its 2026-2027 budget, explaining the increase was tied to taking over the Cypress Bend Resort hotel and related property; members asked about long-term self-sufficiency and local support, and the items were approved favorably. The Louisiana Department of Health received approval for 15 HERO Fund grant awards totaling about $4.6 million to support 541 new health care credentials statewide. The Water Sector Commission’s recommendations were also approved, including $619,850 more for St. Mary Parish Water and Sewer Commission No. 5 and emergency subfund support for the city of Tallulah, conditioned on a limited fiscal administration order. Finally, members reviewed an agreement between the LCTCS Board and its Facilities Corporation under Act 35, and the meeting adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have Senator Van. >> So why are we removing legal contracts from contract review?
• for legal service contracts.
• does not come before contract review. I does not come before contract review.
• </c> contracts through aidt through contract contracts through aidt through contract review?
• </c> exception for legal service contracts. exception for legal service contracts.

Bills: HB303, SB360, SB325, HB477, SB329, HB381, SB330

Keywords: 923, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Members will now take up HB 427, Public Adjuster Contracts, by Rep. Melo.
• The public adjuster knocks on the door and this man signs a contract with the public adjuster.
• The guardian finds out after the fact that you have to be able to terminate the contract.
• The public adjuster knocks on 395 the door and this 396 man signs a contract signs, the contract to the
• You work with a client and enter into a contract.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and heard several insurance and banking bills. HB 1399, relating to property insurance affiliates, would increase Office of Insurance Regulation oversight of transactions between property insurers and affiliates, require fair-and-reasonable documentation, review of dividends and asset pledges, contract termination clauses, affiliate registration, and penalties for violations. Members from both parties generally supported the goal of transparency and accountability, though some raised concerns about costs and whether the bill would actually return money to insureds. The bill was reported favorably. HB 427, on public adjuster contracts, would allow vulnerable adults or their legal representatives to rescind public adjuster contracts without penalty, reflecting the sponsor’s personal concerns about protecting elderly and otherwise vulnerable family members from predatory contracting. Public testimony included support from several industry and elder-law groups, while the public adjuster association warned the bill could unfairly target one profession and urged broader language. Members debated whether the bill should be expanded to cover other solicitations and whether legal representatives should be treated differently, but the bill was ultimately reported favorably. The committee also approved HB 893, which aligns bank handling of law-firm trust accounts with Florida Supreme Court rules and supports legal aid funding, and HB 767, a transparency bill requiring insurers to provide consumers with plain-language explanations of rate increases and related factors. Members emphasized consumer education and clearer disclosures, and HB 767 passed 2-0. Later, HB 381, the Office of Financial Regulation agency bill, was amended and reported favorably; it updates financial regulation provisions including cybersecurity-related requirements, money services business rules, credit union and financial institution provisions, and fee timing. HB 777, a related public-records bill protecting nonpublic personal information submitted to OFR, was also heard and moved forward without opposition.

Transcript Highlights:

• amount which may be increased or decreased through contract amendments and supplementary contracts.
• contract to the contractor to ensure that the proper performance of the contract, provided that the
• </c> to read as follows any public contract to read as follows any public contract may<00:20:38.120><
• /c><00:20:44.480><c> to</c> under the contract to the contractor to under the contract to the contractor
• any contract contract including any contract Amendment<00:21:29.159><c> or</c><00:21:29.360><c> supplementary

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee met for joint decision-making on several measures related to elections, telework, procurement, hiring, public records, and public meetings. On Senate Bill 444, testimony was largely opposed or in comment, and the chairs said the bill raised real issues that needed more time; they deferred it for the year. Senate Bill 1091 on telework and space allocation drew support and discussion about DAGS’ role versus the Department of Human Resources; the committee agreed to amend it in a Senate Draft 1 to remove reference to OE, add a DAGS management analyst position, change “positions” to “allocations,” limit the assessment to executive branch departments in DAGS-managed or DAGS-leased facilities, and add a defective date, then passed it with amendments. Senate Bill 1057 on apprenticeship-related bid incentives received mixed testimony, including support from labor and opposition from some contractor groups, and was passed as a Senate Draft 1 with technical amendments and a defective date. Senate Bill 1065 on skills-based hiring, which would bar bachelor’s degree requirements for most state jobs with exemptions, had support from the Comptroller and outside groups and was passed with technical amendments and a defective date. The committee also took up several procurement and accountability measures. Senate Bill 92 on emergency medical response/defibrillators was deferred indefinitely because a pilot project is already underway in the Capitol building and the committee wants to use that information before expanding. Senate Bill 1175 on a past-performance procurement database was amended to add general fund appropriations and committee-report language about funding needs, then passed. Senate Bill 1587 on retainage was heavily amended to define total project budget, revise retainage language, leave key percentage and day limits blank for further review, limit application to contracts executed after January 1, 2026, and add a defective date; it passed as amended. Senate Bill 1543 on government accountability was amended to incorporate procurement officer changes and add language ensuring inherent government functions are not delegated to contractors, then passed. Senate Bill 1255 on government records was amended to clarify that records used in performing a government function are public records subject to UIPA, add contractor recordkeeping/access requirements, protect certain confidential contract information, and add a defective date; it passed. Additional measures were either deferred or advanced with amendments. Senate Bill 1513 on appropriations was deferred to a time certain on February 11. Senate Bill 1616 on care centers was converted into a feasibility study and passed with a defective date. Senate Bill 74 on state construction projects was deferred indefinitely due to concerns it could slow projects and duplicate another measure. Senate Bill 125 on state organizations and administrations was amended to codify Administrative Directive 19-02, with a note about a possible title issue, and passed. Senate Bill 786 on government records was deferred to February 11 for further amendment work. Senate Bill 1611 on government positions was amended by removing section two and passed. Senate Bill 1637 was deferred for the year after testimony indicated the action could already be done. Senate Bill 1651 on public meetings was amended to require board packets by the third business day before a meeting, remove the word “full,” and adjust notice language, then passed. Senate Bill 1617 on public meetings was deferred because the Office of Information Practices reported no complaints. Senate Bill 1253 on boards and commissions was deferred indefinitely due to no testimony. Senate Bill 1031 on advisory referendums was deferred to February 11 for possible amendments. Senate Bill 1306 on a procurement automation special fund was amended to align procurement statutes and add the School Facilities Authority executive director as a chief procurement officer, then passed.

Transcript Highlights:

• We do expect to see in a contract.
• And you won't be able to conduct that analysis until you see a contract. >> Contract.
• than oil contracts. >> Less volatile, but still volatile. >> If it's a blended contract, but you can
• be a contract that would it always be a blended contract, or would it be a contract?
• delays in the the contract itself?

Bills: HB2284

Keywords: energy assistance, low-income households, electricity costs, Hawaii home energy assistance program, energy efficiency, 910, house, all

Summary: The hearing covered House Bill 2284, which would create the Hawaii Home Energy Assistance Program in the Department of Human Services to help qualifying households pay energy bills and direct the Public Utilities Commission’s public benefits fee administrator to provide information and assistance to recipients. Testimony from the Division of Consumer Advocacy, DHS, and the Public Utilities Commission was in support. A committee member asked about how the program would interact with existing TANF-related energy assistance and whether rules could be adjusted to avoid duplicative benefits; DHS said logistics would need to be worked out and that the agencies would make the rules. The committees noted the bill’s $1.5 million appropriation and moved it forward with amendments, including blanking out amounts and noting them in the committee report. Both committees voted to pass HB 2284 with amendments, with the recommendation adopted. The committee then heard House Bill 2486, relating to plug-in or balcony solar. DCCA, the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, and the Public Utilities Commission stood on prior testimony in support of the bill’s intent. Multiple advocates and organizations, including Carbon Cashback Hawaii, 350 Hawaii, Bright Saver, Sierra Club of Hawaii, and others, testified in support, arguing that plug-in solar would lower electricity bills, expand access for renters and condo residents, and reduce emissions. Several speakers urged the committee to remove or avoid registration, reporting, feed-in tariff, interconnection fee, and other requirements they said would create barriers. Bright Saver testified that the systems are safe and would not back-feed during outages. No vote was taken on HB 2486 during the excerpt. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 1568, which would prohibit the importation or storage of LNG in the state and the construction of related infrastructure. State agencies including the Consumer Advocate, Hawaii State Energy Office, Public Utilities Commission, and Hawaiian Electric opposed the bill, with the Energy Office arguing LNG would perpetuate oil use on Oahu and expose the state to price volatility. Supporters included Life of the Land, Sierra Club of Hawaii, Greenpeace Hawaii, 350 Hawaii, Earthjustice, Our Hawaii, and others, who argued LNG would lock Hawaii into another fossil fuel dependency, create major infrastructure costs and safety risks, and undermine the state’s renewable energy goals. Several testifiers cited climate and affordability concerns and urged the committee to reject LNG. The excerpt ends during testimony on HB 1568, before any committee action or vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• and prohibit sole-source contracting.
• The Public Contract Code was written to guard against favoritism and promote fair competition.
• contracts.
• The way these contracts are rigged is to write them... ...to the favored bidder.
• People don't realize how lucrative these contracts really are.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Agriculture met with a quorum and heard one bill, SB 1223 by Senator Padilla, after SB 1410 was pulled from the agenda. SB 1223 would require state and county fairs to use competitive bidding standards for contracts and prohibit sole-source contracting. The author and witness argued the bill was needed to close loopholes in the Public Contract Code, citing reported corruption and litigation involving fair contracts, including allegations that bid scores were altered and RFPs were written to favor a single bidder. The committee heard support testimony from the bill’s witness, who described the lawsuits and said some fair contracts had avoided competitive bidding for years. There was no opposition testimony. Committee members expressed support, noting that agricultural districts are state entities that should follow state contracting rules. The committee voted to do pass SB 1223 to the Appropriations Committee. The roll call was recorded as four votes in favor, with the bill placed on call for the absent member and then reported out 4-0.

Transcript Highlights:

• and prohibit sole-source contracting.
• The Public Contract Code was written to guard against favoritism and promote fair competition.
• contracts.
• The way these contracts are rigged is to write them... ...to the favored bidder.
• People don't realize how lucrative these contracts really are.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It was all going to be raised by the alumni and by contracts.
• </c><01:04:29.839><c> And</c><01:04:30.079><c> lo</c> by the alumni and by contracts.
• And lo by the alumni and by contracts.
• But I have sold insurance and read insurance contracts on liability since about 1978. Okay.
• </c> contracts on liability since about 1978. contracts on liability since about 1978. Okay. Okay.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As you said, there's a contract.
• . contract. contract.
• </c> accountability built into the contract. accountability built into the contract.
• As you said, there's a contract.
• </c><00:29:18.880><c> for</c> school districts already contract for school districts already contract

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Interim Joint Budget Review Subcommittee on Education met with a quorum, approved the August 20, 2025 minutes, and then heard a discussion tied to Constitution Day and Kentucky’s constitutional duty to provide an efficient system of common schools. Chairman James Tipton reviewed the history of Kentucky’s model laboratory schools, postsecondary academy programs such as Gatton and Craft, magnet schools, virtual learning, and computer science opportunities, arguing that Kentucky has long expanded educational opportunity through different school models. He described model schools and academy programs as hybrid or innovative approaches that serve specialized student needs and noted that some of these programs receive state appropriations and, in some cases, tuition. Senator Steve West then gave a retrospective on school choice in Kentucky, beginning with the 2017 charter school law and explaining that Kentucky’s charter framework was designed as public-only to comply with the state constitution. He said charter schools have remained largely dormant in Kentucky and used that as context for Senate Bill 207, the School Innovation Act, which he said was modeled on a South Carolina approach. Under SB 207, a local school board can contract with a third-party entity to manage an existing school, receive SEEK funding, and seek waivers from certain state regulations in order to innovate, while retaining limits on items such as school safety and attendance rules. Members asked about how the new model differs from charter schools, whether schools could cherry-pick students, and whether teachers would remain district employees. West and Tipton said the bill is intended to keep the school within the public system, with the local district initiating the process and maintaining accountability through a time-limited contract that can be ended if the school fails to perform. They emphasized that the school would serve the existing student population rather than select students, and that teachers would remain district employees with their pensions and related contributions unchanged. Representative Brown raised concerns that exceptions and charters could leave lower-income children behind, while West responded that the bill is meant to expand choice for families who otherwise lack access and cited examples from other states where outside management and parental involvement helped turn around low-performing schools. No additional votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Superintendent contracts are already public documents.
• Some charged her money to access that superintendence contract.
• Now tell me again, to access that superintendents contract.
• months to get all of the superintendent contracts.
• There was a comment about posting contracts online... ...posting contracts online will discourage people

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 2266, which would change school release-time policy for religious instruction from permissive to mandatory for school districts and charter governing bodies. The sponsor and supporters said the bill protects parental choice, religious liberty, and constitutional release-time programs, while opponents argued it would reduce local control, pull students from instructional time, and expose schools to constitutional and social harms. After public testimony and debate over liability, indoctrination, and academic impact, the committee voted 7-5 to give HB 2266 a due pass recommendation. The committee then took up House Bill 2193, a cleanup measure related to student directory information and parent organizations. The bill would allow parents of enrolled students or representatives of nonprofit organizations supporting a school to receive directory information unless a parent or eligible student opts out. Supporters from PTO/PTA groups said the change is needed so parent organizations can continue communicating with families and building school community, while members raised concerns about whether the language should be narrowed to avoid political or other misuse of student data. The sponsor said he was open to an amendment, and the committee approved HB 2193 on a 10-1 vote, with one member present. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 2075, which would require public school districts to submit superintendent and other top administrator contracts or attestations to ADE and create a searchable online database of compensation details, including salary, benefits, and car allowances. The sponsor described it as a transparency measure, and the committee discussed an amendment to add more specific filing deadlines and the online database requirement. Opponents from school administrators and rural districts argued that superintendent salaries are already public, that the bill should also apply to charter and private schools receiving public funds, and that it could add burdens or distort comparisons across different public-sector labor markets. Supporters said the bill would make total compensation easier to access and reduce public records requests. The sponsor closed by saying the bill would centralize compensation information and simplify disclosure for districts.

Transcript Highlights:

• Some contracts have been canceled; others were halted mid-negotiation.
• Last Monday, I lost a $2 million multi-year contract with UTMD Anderson.
• We still had to win the contracts in open competition and deliver strong results.
• The HUB certification positioned us to compete for state contracts.
• It was a two-year, $2 million contract.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, we have contract deputies that we've, uh, we have the largest contract, uh, deputy program in Harris
• Uh, with, with current contracts right now.
• value for the, uh, for the contract going forward.
• So, first of all, go back into the, uh, the contract, Deputy.
• So the county deputy contracting, the contract program saves the county a tremendous amount of money

Transcript Highlights:

• A concessions contract may be entered by negotiation of adequate compensation.
• It's an adhesive contract. And the process that we added, We have no choice.
• It's an adhesive contract.
• Because, you know, when a state employee clicks through, that's a contract.
• It's an adhesive contract, but it's still a contract.

Summary: The task force first approved the March 25, 2026 minutes as amended, including a correction removing language that suggested the auditor’s office would contract with a security vendor. Members then moved to a bill draft on concessions (LC 27.0161.00000), which would raise the competitive solicitation threshold from $25,000 to $50,000, allow requests for proposals in addition to bids, clarify that proceeds go to the entity’s operating fund or general fund, and make other technical updates. OMB explained the draft and answered questions about scope, fragmentation, vendor restrictions, school districts, and whether concession proceeds could be directed to nonprofits; OMB said the draft could be refined further, including clarifying covered entities and contract length. No vote was taken on the draft during the discussion. OMB also reported on other survey items. It said a proposal to broadly allow agencies to create pre-qualified architect/engineering/land surveying vendor pools would not move forward, because the existing authority is working well for the agencies that already have it. On legal notices, OMB said it has been working with the North Dakota Newspaper Association on modernization, including an ADA-compliant online notice system and possible statutory updates to reflect changing technology and notice definitions. On click-through agreements for routine IT purchases, OMB and the Attorney General’s office said policy clarification—not statutory change—was enough, and the $20,000 threshold was intended to distinguish low-dollar adhesive contracts from purchases where terms can be negotiated. The committee also heard that OMB and the Center for Distance Education had resolved questions about alternate procurements and food/beverage expenditures through existing policy, so no statutory changes were needed there. North Dakota University System representatives gave a brief update on ongoing collaboration with OMB on statutory efficiency ideas, including concessions and surplus property. Finally, the task force discussed a draft on requirements for new or expanded spending programs, which would require agencies to identify purpose, expected benefits, alternatives, success measures, and full implementation costs, and would require reporting on outcomes over time. Members debated whether OMB or Legislative Council should collect and report the information, how to use the new program evaluators, whether real-time dashboards should be used, and how to choose which programs to evaluate; staff from Legislative Council said they would work with OMB and the auditor’s office to revise the draft and process.

Transcript Highlights:

• The dollar amounts that we have invested in our contracts.
• So good active contract management. So good active contract management.
• that we work with the contracts division to do.
• that we work with the contracts division to do.
• </c> on our providers through our contracted on our providers through our contracted or<00:44:34.839>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee convened an informational Division 3 Finance hearing focused on DHHS programmatic issues rather than budget line items. The chair emphasized that members should avoid questions requiring dollar figures and noted that the coming budget cycle would likely be difficult because revenues are expected to be tighter. Commissioner Lori Weaver said the department wanted to use the session to explain its functions at a high level, with more detailed presentations to follow, and to collect questions for later responses. Weaver outlined DHHS’s mission of supporting optimal health for state residents and described the department’s three main responsibilities: protection and prevention, client service delivery, and regulatory oversight. She said DHHS has eight divisions, a $3.6 billion total budget, about $1.217 billion in general funds, roughly a quarter of state positions, and personnel costs that are less than 11% of the budget. She also noted a recent hiring freeze, explained that the department did not request new positions except where required by law, and said vacancy rates had improved from 22% to 14% over the last two years but could rise again because of attrition and the hiring freeze. Weaver and CFO Nathan White then discussed why the DHHS budget is complex, explaining that it is built from multiple funding sources and is shaped by assumptions made months before the fiscal year begins, actual service demand, and cost allocation rules used to draw down federal funds. White highlighted maintenance-of-effort requirements, including TANF, where state spending is needed to secure federal matching funds and shortfalls can trigger penalties. At the committee’s request, DHHS agreed to provide a simplified historical accounting of TANF contributions to show how the match is assembled across positions, contracts, and other factors. The department also reviewed its roadmap, which Weaver described as a framework developed with staff and stakeholders around three themes: culture, community, and customer service. She highlighted priorities such as Mission Zero to end emergency department boarding, expanding access to community-based and residential behavioral health services, reducing reliance on institutional care, improving contract management with nonprofit and provider partners, using data dashboards to guide decisions, and investing in workforce stability and culture. No votes were taken; the main action was DHHS’s commitment to provide additional follow-up materials, including the TANF contribution breakdown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Has she repudiated the contract there?
• I met him through our contracting process. Thank you. I met him through our contracting process.
• This is another contract between AOC and AEJG. This is another contract between AOC and AEJG.
• We made a deal to do a contract amendment that encapsulated the understanding. ...to a contract amendment
• to the contract between AOC and AEJG.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The hearing concerned a Legislative Ethics Board complaint against Representative Tara Simmons in Washington State OAH Docket 401-645. The judge outlined the process, the two issues on appeal—whether Simmons violated RCW 42.52.020 and RCW 42.52.070, and, if so, what penalty should apply—and admitted a number of exhibits by stipulation or prior ruling, while taking one exhibit under advisement pending an offer of proof. The board also moved to sequester witnesses, which was granted, and the judge deferred ruling on a motion to exclude three defense witnesses until after hearing the board staff’s case. Opening statements followed, with staff alleging Simmons used her position to benefit an outside organization and to secure special privileges, and the defense arguing the conduct was lawful, technical in nature, and consistent with prior ethics guidance. Board staff then called Kimberly Gordon, an attorney and founding board member/treasurer of American Equity and Justice Group (AEJG), as its first witness. Gordon testified that AEJG used data dashboards to make justice-system data more accessible, received state proviso funding sponsored by Simmons, and also received two donations from Simmons—$10,000 and $40,000. She said the first donation was intended to help hire Antoine Coleman, whom Simmons had recommended and who was later identified as Simmons’s romantic partner, and that AEJG returned the $10,000 and declined the $40,000 after concluding there was a potential conflict of interest. Gordon also testified that AEJG believed Simmons’s involvement in the organization and her communications about Coleman created ethical concerns. Gordon further testified about a second proviso intended to expand AEJG’s work into education data and its subcontract with Equity in Education Coalition (EEC). She said EEC did not perform the expected deliverables, prompting repeated communications with the Administrative Office of the Courts and a meeting involving Chris Stanley, where AEJG raised concerns that EEC was not complying and that Simmons had intervened in the dispute. According to Gordon, Stanley ultimately directed the parties to rewrite the subcontract and continue, but AEJG later moved forward largely without EEC’s assistance. The board staff introduced AEJG’s complaint and related timeline exhibits during her testimony. After direct examination, the hearing recessed for lunch, and cross-examination by Simmons’s counsel began when the hearing resumed.

Transcript Highlights:

• The portion that goes to ITD, the 60%, is all contracted. It's all bid and contracted. All right.
• It's all contracted.
• It's all contracted.
• We contract out the bigger projects.
• As the director mentioned, much of the projects are contracted out.

Summary: The Senate Finance and House Appropriations committees heard the Idaho Transportation Department budget presentation from Legislative Services Office analyst Brooke Dupree, who reviewed the department’s four divisions, staffing levels, major funds, and recent appropriation trends. She highlighted the department’s large reliance on reappropriation, the continuous appropriation of the Strategic Initiatives Program Fund, and several enhancement requests, including $15.5 million for deferred maintenance, funding for State Highway 16 operations and maintenance, $4.9 million for roadside tree removal, $4.7 million for new equipment, a $275 million general fund transfer for safety/capacity and road/bridge maintenance, and smaller requests for aeronautics improvements and replacement items. She also noted the governor’s recommendation differed from the request, especially by not recommending the $275 million transfer and by proposing cash transfers back from the Strategic Initiatives Fund. Members questioned the analyst and then Director Scott Stokes about the impact of the proposed reductions, the continuous appropriation language, and whether general funds were being eliminated in the transportation budget. Stokes explained that the governor’s recommendation would pull back $45 million in FY 2026 and eliminate the FY 2027 transfer, and that the continuous appropriation language was a request to keep the fund continuously appropriated. He also said ITD would adjust project schedules if funding changed and would provide a list of affected safety and capacity projects to the committee. During questions to the director, members asked about workforce retention, the State Street property/disaster cleanup project, ITD’s delayed full transition to Luma, the TechM/TECM bonding program, and the mix of in-house versus contracted work. Stokes said retention had improved after pay adjustments, the State Street project had spent only a few million so far with hazmat removal bid under $1 million instead of the earlier $8 million estimate, and the project’s total cost was now estimated at roughly $60 million to $70 million with about $41 million appropriated. He said ITD remains on its existing finance system for now because of federal reimbursement needs, that prior TECM projects were fully bonded and contracted and the next bonding decision would come in July, and that ITD contracts out larger projects while using its own crews for smaller maintenance tasks like tree removal. The meeting ended with general comments about the importance of transportation investment and notice that the committee would meet the next day on rescissions, cash transfers, and statewide decisions.

Transcript Highlights:

• And was there a formal written contract for that? There was a formal written contract.
• I got A chance to read the contract. I'm really uncomfortable with what the contract now says.
• There's an employment contract.
• -E.C. contract dispute.
• -E.C. contract dispute.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The hearing resumed on day two of the Legislative Ethics Board fact-finding matter involving Representative Tara Simmons. After opening remarks and confirmation that board members had not engaged in outside research or ex parte communications, Simmons’s counsel moved to dismiss two allegations at the close of the board staff’s case: that Simmons pressured the Administrative Office of the Courts to alter a contract in favor of her employer, and that she improperly combined a legislative proviso for AEJG with a personal donation to the organization. Board staff opposed the motion, arguing the evidence showed Simmons’s legislative and private conduct were intertwined and that the board had enough evidence to require a defense. After deliberation, the board denied the motion to dismiss and proceeded to hear defense testimony. The first defense witness, Sharon Navas, testified that she met Simmons through advocacy work, later hired her at the Equity and Education Coalition (EEC), and maintained written employment policies intended to separate Simmons’s legislative role from her work for EEC. Navas said Simmons was never compensated for lobbying or legislative acts, that EEC paid her from unrestricted funds, and that Simmons did not work on the AEJG dashboard project or participate in the contract dispute with Anthony Powers and Chris Stanley. Navas described the proviso request and later contract issues as separate from Simmons’s legislative duties, and said she continued to pay invoices while the project was being completed. Simmons then testified about her background, legislative career, disability accommodations, and extensive efforts to seek ethics advice before taking outside employment or pursuing provisos. She said she repeatedly consulted House ethics counsel and reviewed prior board decisions to ensure her outside work and legislative actions were separated. Simmons described her relationship with Anthony Powers, the dashboard project, the proviso process, and her understanding that the work was distinct from her legislative role. The hearing paused for lunch after part of Simmons’s direct examination, with testimony set to continue after the break.

Transcript Highlights:

• audit rights based on however the contract is laid out.
• It prohibits PBMs from imposing discriminatory contract terms...
• Today, only 9 cents of every dollar of savings comes from our contract pharmacies.
• Other states already require manufacturers to honor contract pharmacy arrangements.
• However, wholesale distributors operate under contract with manufacturers.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a lengthy hearing on a large docket of pharmacy and drug-pricing bills, with most testimony focused on PBM reform, 340B drug discount program protections, specialty medication access, and medication adherence. Chair James Murphy and Senator Paul Feeney opened the hearing and took testimony from legislators, patient advocates, pharmacists, health center leaders, industry representatives, and policy groups. Several speakers described delays, denials, high out-of-pocket costs, and pharmacy closures tied to PBM practices, while others emphasized the importance of community health centers and independent pharmacies in serving patients. On the 340B program, supporters including Senator Eldridge, Senator Payano, Community Care Cooperative, Fenway Health, the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers, and several community health center leaders argued that bills such as H. 1107 and S. 819 would stop discriminatory PBM and manufacturer practices, preserve contract pharmacy access, and protect safety-net providers that say they reinvest savings into care, pharmacy expansion, interpreter services, behavioral health, and other services. Opponents including PhRMA, the Community Liver Alliance, and a public policy analyst argued the program lacks transparency and accountability, has grown beyond its original purpose, and may benefit large hospitals and for-profit entities more than low-income patients. They urged more reporting and oversight rather than expanding protections. On PBM reform, testimony supported bills including H. 1157, H. 1234, S. 724, S. 831, and related measures that would require rebate pass-through, ban spread pricing, limit steering to PBM-owned pharmacies, and improve reimbursement for community pharmacies. Independent pharmacists and patients said current PBM practices raise costs, create administrative burdens, and threaten access to local pharmacies. PCMA, representing PBMs, opposed the reforms, arguing PBMs lower costs, that plan sponsors choose to contract with them, and that the Health Policy Commission and CHIA should complete their ongoing study before new mandates are adopted. The committee also heard support for H. 1322 and S. 734 on specialty medications, and for H. 781 and H. 1305 on medication synchronization to improve adherence. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• “My recollection is that Contract 2 and Contract 5 were problematic to the board.
• Contract 2: unwritten sales contract between a hardware store solely owned by a legislator and a state
• And then Contract 5 is a written contract between a real estate appraisal company and a state agency
• So I would recommend that the discussion of Contract 2 and Contract 5 be retired, leaving the rest of
• the contract; somebody else in his organization dealt with the contracts.”

Summary: The meeting opened with attendance and technical setup, including bringing a remote member into the session. The chair also made brief remarks about public service in light of recent violence against public officials, and a member shared condolences related to a colleague’s death. The committee then approved the minutes and noted no employment disclosure forms were filed. The main business was an update on digitizing committee files. Staff reported that the archival scanning estimate had been reduced and that a DocuSign contract would be sent for the chair’s signature. Members also discussed whether the work could be completed before the end of the biennium and whether existing funds could be used or prepaid. The committee then reviewed a long list of remaining advisory opinions and, on motion, approved staff recommendations to retain some opinions and retire or partially retire others based on changes in law or usefulness of the opinions. Topics included special privileges, frequent flyer miles, state contracts involving legislators, tours sponsored by lobbying entities, conflicts of interest, confidentiality of drafting requests, election-year brochures, and recusal/firewall issues. After a separate discussion about an older election-related outreach opinion, members agreed they likely still intended to apply the same factors outside the election-year context and asked staff to revisit whether that opinion should be unretired or revised. The public portion of the meeting was then adjourned, with the committee preparing to move into executive session.