Transcript Highlights:

• The entire purpose of this bill is to expedite this process.
• There's going to be some type of selection process, I'm assuming.
• And that process is also very important to them. Understood.
• And that process is also very important to them. Understood.
• And that process is also very important to them. Understood.

Keywords: 909, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And remember that we do have a re referencing process in my good friend.
• Senator Osgood doesn't deal with the due process component.
• Please allow due process. >> Thank you.
• We need to be much more deliberate about this process.
• and the disciplinary hot process inside hospitals in the process of peer review in the process of making

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:20:21.159> I really voting more for the process I really voting more for the process I
• Mostly what it does is codify existing practice to make sure that this whole process is process-dependent
• And the fourth thing that it does is provides a process for legislative oversight.
• is um process dependent whole process is um process dependent and<00:23:12.480> not<00:23:12.760
• within the Attorney General's process within the Attorney General's office<00:24:13.320> how<

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:01 Attendance Roll Call: 00:04 HB 684 (Rep. Decker): 00:49 HB 71 (Rep. Duvall): 06:55 HB 290 (Rep. Wilson): 09:20 HB 555 (Rep. Freeland): 15:21 HB 160 (Rep. Witten): 16:30 HB 455 (Rep. Flannery): 22:04 Adjournment: 27:21, 958, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on State and Local Government considered several bills. House Bill 684, an elections “continuous improvement” measure, drew the most discussion. Rep. Jennifer Decker said it was based on issues identified during the 2024 election cycle and included changes to absentee voting for primary caregivers and other election administration updates. Senators focused on a committee substitute removing credit and debit cards as a second form of ID for provisional ballots; Decker said local election workers had reported people trying to use cards with no photo ID, and she did not want financial institutions determining voter eligibility. The bill also clarified that certain ballots could be issued by hand or by mail. It passed 9-1, with some members voting no or passing because they wanted more time to consider the ID change. House Bill 71, requested by the Kentucky Public Pension Authority, would reorganize KPPA by creating an Office of Financial Management and moving the CFO into an executive director-level role. Testimony said the change was structural only, with no impact on system funding and minimal short-term costs. It passed unanimously, 11-0. House Bill 290, by Rep. Nick Wilson, would allow county law libraries to use funds for online legal research resources, computers, and internet-related equipment. Supporters said libraries had money but were limited to buying books; the bill passed unanimously, with the chair noting it would let libraries use existing funds more effectively. House Bill 555, as amended by committee substitute, addressed audit and reporting requirements for small cities. Supporters from the Kentucky League of Cities and the Auditor’s Office said many small cities struggle to find certified CPAs, and the bill would raise the threshold for less frequent audits, expand the exemption threshold, allow the Auditor’s Office to contract to perform audits, and clarify that state-fund withholding for noncompliance would not apply to contractual or utility payments. It passed 10-1, and the title amendment was adopted. House Bill 160, with a committee substitute, would regulate manufactured housing and local zoning by establishing standards that supporters said were needed to prevent discrimination against modern manufactured homes. Several senators expressed concern about state interference in local zoning, while others supported the bill as a housing access measure; it passed 10-1. Finally, House Bill 455 would create a Unit of Election Investigations and Security in the Attorney General’s Office to handle election-crime allegation review, the voter fraud hotline, prosecutorial referrals, and legislative oversight. Supporters said it codified existing practices and would not require new funding, but opponents objected to placing the hotline in a partisan office. The bill passed 9-1 with one pass, and the committee adjourned after reporting favorable action on the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• The HOA board decided to initiate the foreclosure process.
• another story from my community process another story from my community involves<00:06:14.680> roof
• And with that, I will introduce Senator P... foreclosure process but also working to foreclosure process
• the process to contest fines<00:08:40.959> or fines or fines or violations<00:08:43.080> our
• dispute resolution and sort we process dispute resolution and sort of<00:18:42.559> gives<00:

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: Legislators unveiled the Master Common Interest Community and Homeowner Association Policy Reform Bill, describing it as a comprehensive package built from a 14-meeting interim work group and public listening sessions. Speakers said the bill is intended to update Minnesota law with clearer standards for governance, open meetings, governing documents, dispute resolution, fines and fees, foreclosure procedures, conflicts of interest, and the roles of municipalities and civil rights protections. They framed the measure as a bipartisan effort aimed at consumer protections, transparency, fairness, and clearer expectations for both homeowners and volunteer board members. Much of the discussion focused on complaints from constituents about excessive fines, unexplained fees, lack of access to financial documents, weak dispute processes, and conflicts of interest involving property managers and contractors. Examples included a small trash-can violation escalating to foreclosure and a roof-repair contract steered to a subsidiary of the property management company. Senators and representatives said the bill would require associations to adopt written fine policies, provide notice and time to cure violations, and create internal dispute-resolution procedures so homeowners are not forced immediately into costly legal fights. A key policy question was Article 3, which would bar cities and municipalities from conditioning approval of new developments on amenities or features that require an HOA, while still allowing voluntary HOAs. Sponsors said this would reduce the number of homeowners pushed into associations and prevent local governments from shifting costs onto residents. They also said the bill is part of a broader package that includes separate measures on registration requirements, attorney general enforcement, an ombudsman office, and a task force to study insurance costs. No formal votes were taken in the transcript. The speakers said the Senate bill was expected to have a housing committee hearing the following week, with additional committee stops likely in state and local government and judiciary, and that House-side negotiations were ongoing. They also said the bill could still be refined as testimony continues and stakeholders raise concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• , but open to process changes on it.
• , but open to process changes on it.
• Our uh as the process changes on it.
• um opportunities um at at processing um opportunities um at at processing facilities.<00:58:54.160
• <01:20:51.760> processes plant's nutritional process processes plant's nutritional process

Bills: HF3898, HF3957, HF4372, HF4350, HF3692, HF4085

Keywords: pesticides, wild rice, environmental protection, agriculture, water quality, pollinators, training, management plan, fertilizer research, education grants, Minnesota Agricultural Council, technology transfer, agricultural productivity, HF4372, Minnesota agriculture, meat processing, meat processing training, retention incentive grants, grant extension, project deadline extension

Transcript Highlights:

• So, I think that there review process.
• to help facilitate the 60 review process to help facilitate the 60 review process for<00:48:52.079
• we're making the process better here. we're making the process better here.
• >> And then what is the current process >> And then what is the current process that
• <01:47:39.040> We different processes in the past. We different processes in the past.

Bills: HB2611, HB2102, HB1710, HB1868, HB1920, HB1812, HB1733, HB1715, HB1723, HB1724, HB1727, HB1711

Keywords: HB2611, Hawaii antitrust, rental housing, rent price-fixing, algorithmic pricing, algorithmic rent-setting, property management software, pricing algorithms, rent coordination, price-fixing, collusion, cartel, multifamily housing, landlord software, occupancy levels, lease terms, Attorney General, public education program, consumer protection, housing affordability

Summary: The committee first took up HB 2611, which would prohibit algorithmic price-setting in Hawaii’s rental market, require public education by the Attorney General, and establish fines and penalties. The Department of the Attorney General opposed the bill, saying its language was too unclear and could expose landlords and agents to criminal and civil liability for ordinary rent-setting practices based on public information or assistance from property professionals. Members asked about antitrust standards, tacit agreement, and whether using county-published affordable-rent schedules would be unlawful; the AG said that would not be unlawful if based on public information and without collusion. Testimony was mixed, with the chair noting support from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, Hawaii Realtors with comments, 50501 Hawaii and General Strike Hawaii, Haloha Project, 13 individuals, and one opponent. The committee then heard HB 2102, which clarifies that residential projects involving ground disturbance in high-risk areas remain subject to state historic preservation review and removes an exemption for lands presumed nominally sensitive. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development and the Department of Planning and Permitting supported the measure, saying it would improve clarity and ensure review focuses on projects most likely to affect historic properties or iwi kupuna, while also urging language refinements to better define sensitive sandy-soil areas and balance preservation with housing timelines. NAP Hawaii opposed the bill, arguing it would undo progress made last session and that the current process already includes protections for inadvertent discoveries and efficiency for lower-risk areas. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs strongly supported HB 2102, explaining it was responding to beneficiary complaints about late-added language in last year’s law and saying the nominally sensitive-area language should be removed because it was adopted without sufficient stakeholder input and could be harmful to iwi kupuna protections. Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation and several individuals also supported the bill. Committee discussion focused on how “nominally sensitive” areas are determined, whether project proponents could self-certify areas as exempt, and how high-density residential projects should be treated; SHPD said it uses survey and monitoring data to map sensitivity, that highly sensitive areas like Kīauea are not nominally sensitive, and that some high-density projects should remain exempt if they do not involve new ground disturbance. The hearing included no final vote in the portion provided, but the chair noted 48 individuals in support and continued questioning on the bill’s definitions and implementation.

Transcript Highlights:

• 48,000 vendor payments a week process 48,000 vendor payments a week process 56,000<00:05:23.039>
• <00:24:01.840> some projects are in RFP process some projects are in RFP process some projects
• But rulemaking itself has a process.
• What does not have a process is executive orders from the president. They're process-free.
• what does not have itself has a process what does not have a<01:15:48.960> process<01:15:49.960

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Would I understand that the process, or you can tell me whether or not the process would be the same,
• Would I understand that the process, or you can tell me whether or not the process would be the same,
• "Would I understand that the process, or you can tell me whether or not the process would be the same
• :14.479> on approval processes to do construction on approval processes to do construction on
• <04:01:33.040> goes variability into how that process goes variability into how that process

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We are at the legislative hearing process.
• Okay, well, thank you very much for that summary and the history and the process.
• I guess my question is just more related to the process. You know, I appreciate... Chair.
• I guess my question is just more related to the process.
• You know, I appreciate I guess my question is just more related to the process.

Summary: The Senate Business, Financial Services and Trade Committee held a public hearing on a proposed tribal gaming compact amendment involving the Lummi Nation and the Washington State Gambling Commission. Tina Griffin, director of the Gambling Commission, explained the compact amendment process under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the role of the commission and legislative ex officio members, and noted that the proposal had reached tentative agreement and would next go to hearings before the commission and the House. She said the commission and tribe have a long-standing collaborative relationship. Lummi Nation Vice Chairman Terence Adams and other tribal representatives described the tribe’s gaming history and the purpose of the amendment. The proposal would add or update compact provisions for higher table and lottery limits, extension of credit to customers, electronic table games, and conforming definition changes. Tribal representatives said the changes would support tribal governmental services and economic development while maintaining strong regulation and internal controls. Commission staff said similar provisions have already been approved for other tribes and that the tribe would be responsible for setting responsible credit limits and controls, including customer vetting and self-exclusion checks. Senator Hasegawa asked about how credit would work and what oversight would apply, and staff said they would follow up with more detail. Senator Fortunato clarified that the request was for Lummi to receive provisions already available in other tribal compacts. Committee members also asked about the timing of public comment, and staff said it would be taken at the end of the hearing if any was signed up. No public comment was offered, and the chair closed the hearing without any vote or formal action taken by the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• That also will come through the sunset process.
• Dallas actually changed their processes. They fundamentally changed.
• The next slide is the process.
• So in this whole process of review, does the victim or the community have a say in this process?
• That's just an ongoing process. It comes over from the civil side. Thank you.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But we do have a process in law now.
• We have our public have this process.
• Um I think someone uh process of this.
• that process? that process?
• So, um, you know, we have this process and the process is kind of set up so that we here in this political

Bills: HF3521, HF1807, HF1270, HF2070, HF3136

Keywords: hospital moratorium, hospital construction, bed capacity, hospital expansion, health care facilities, hospital licensing, safety-net hospital, level I trauma center, Ramsey County, Minnesota health law, hospital beds, new hospital exception, certificate of need, inpatient capacity, emergency care, trauma services, health system regulation, state moratorium, hospital modernization, health infrastructure

Transcript Highlights:

• There's two bills that we've added since 2001 that followed under that PERS pilot mandate process.
• There may also be statutory reports required through the Employee Benefits Committee process.
• You're talking about the entire process, the entire seven and a half to line 9? Correct, yes.
• But the insurance department was essentially removed from the process.
• the actuarial report or at any time during the process.

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to approve prior minutes, hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave, and related policy issues, and then recess for lunch. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the long-standing state-paid family coverage, cost-control measures, wellness incentives, the current grandfathered PPO and high-deductible options, and the effects of recent benefit mandates such as insulin caps, prosthetic coverage, medication management, prescription copay changes, and ambulance balance-billing limits. Committee members questioned the fiscal impact of adding benefits and the possible cost of moving to a non-grandfathered plan, while PERS and HRMS emphasized that health insurance remains the top-ranked employee benefit and that any major plan changes should be considered carefully. HRMS also presented compensation comparisons showing state pay generally below private-market benchmarks, discussed targeted market equity adjustments, identified ongoing recruitment and retention concerns in fields like nursing, IT, engineering, and attorneys, and reviewed leave policies, tuition reimbursement, and family leave comparisons with neighboring states. Job Service provided labor market data showing low unemployment, high labor force participation, and wage growth that still trails some neighboring markets, and OMB explained that prevailing wage requirements apply to federally funded projects under Davis-Bacon, not to ordinary state contracts. After lunch, the committee took up the required process for health insurance mandate bills and adopted an amendment to Joint Rule 211. The amendment clarified that the deadline for submitting mandate measures is intended to allow time for all required reports, including both the cost-benefit analysis and any Employee Benefits Committee actuarial report, while leaving the existing deadline unchanged. The amendment was adopted on a roll call vote, with several members voting yes and a few no votes recorded. The committee then moved into its jurisdiction review of bill drafts, beginning with a bill that would automatically renew pre-tax dental and vision elections; members debated whether it had any actuarial or administrative impact on PERS or the state, and the chair explained that the committee’s role was only to decide whether further analysis was needed before later testimony and recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Cities were really opposed to the RENA process at all, the idea that there's a deficit of market-rate
• Our amendments are actually requiring cities to be part of the same regional planning process that's
• I look forward to this bill as it moves forward in the process.
• And so I'm just kind of curious, what is the thought process on the fiduciary part?
• process as to why this came forward.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard SB 866, which would require jurisdictions that do not receive HAP homelessness grants to include homelessness data, strategies, and regional coordination in their housing elements. The author and supporters said the bill would close a gap in planning by requiring more jurisdictions to collect and report data and outline homelessness reduction efforts. Opposition from the League of California Cities and several cities argued the bill would impose duplicative reporting, require data cities cannot control, and burden small jurisdictions without added resources; members discussed possible amendments, including thresholds for very small cities. No final vote was taken on SB 866 during the excerpt. The committee then heard SB 967, which would allow qualifying interim housing units to count toward a jurisdiction’s RHNA obligations for acutely low-income housing, with safeguards against double counting. Supporters said interim housing is a faster, cheaper way to get people indoors and should be incentivized because many Californians remain unsheltered; opponents argued the bill would blur the line between temporary shelter and permanent housing and could reduce pressure to build deeply affordable permanent units. Members debated the policy tradeoff, with some supporting the bill as a practical response to street homelessness and others objecting to counting temporary units toward housing targets. The committee ultimately voted to pass SB 967 to the Senate Appropriations Committee, with the bill kept on call for absent members. The committee also considered SCR 131, a resolution urging a coordinated state effort to end unsheltered homelessness and prioritize a broader set of interventions, including interim housing, permanent supportive housing, and prevention. Supporters framed the resolution as a call to action in response to the scale and human cost of unsheltered homelessness, while one member abstained over concerns that the language could be read as endorsing funding without clear metrics or accountability. The resolution was moved and kept on call. Finally, the committee heard SB 1238 on homeowners association management, which would increase disclosures, transparency, and accountability for HOA managers and boards, including proposed changes to reserve use and inspection reporting. Supporters said the bill would protect homeowners and improve financial clarity, while opposition from community managers objected to a proposed fiduciary duty to individual homeowners and raised concerns about litigation and insurance costs; members discussed those issues and indicated the bill would continue to be worked on in Judiciary.

Transcript Highlights:

• Like I said, it was a really long process. It took a long, long time.
• But it's, it's, that's how I'm processing it.
• She's going to talk to us about the 2026 adequacy study process. Good afternoon.
• So this is if we want to make a change in the process, yeah, or what's included in the matrix.
• What's the process? Go ahead, well...

Summary: The meeting began with approval of the prior minutes and then shifted to an update from Department of Education Secretary Jacob Oliva and Deputy Commissioner Stacey Smith on early childhood education, especially the state-funded Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) program. They said Arkansas had received a federal Preschool Development Grant and described ABC as a large state program with about 23,800 funded slots and roughly $114 million in annual appropriations. Department officials said they are reviewing slot allocations because about 1,000 seats are funded but unfilled, while more than 2,000 families are on waiting lists, and they plan to reduce or reallocate slots from providers that have not filled them over several years. They also said they are examining whether income thresholds, curriculum expectations, daily rates, and summer programming should be updated, and members raised concerns about access, local control, transportation, and whether the program should better align with K-12 choice and school readiness goals. The committee agreed to form an early childhood subcommittee and asked the Bureau of Legislative Research to help gather historical data and other information for future discussion. The committee then received a legal presentation from BLR attorney Taylor Lloyd on the constitutional and statutory framework for education adequacy in Arkansas. She reviewed the Dupree and Lake View cases, explaining that the state must maintain a general, suitable, and efficient system of free public schools, and that adequacy and equity are distinct but related concepts. She emphasized that the General Assembly is responsible for defining adequacy, studying whether the system meets that standard, and reacting to the evidence, while the courts ultimately decide constitutional compliance. Lloyd also explained the current adequacy definition, the role of the matrix as a funding tool rather than a spending mandate, and the distinction between unrestricted foundation funding and restricted categorical funding. BLR’s Elizabeth Bynum followed with a historical overview of how Arkansas responded to the court cases and developed the current adequacy process. She traced major legislative actions from the 1980s through the Lake View litigation, including the creation of funding formulas, categorical aid, isolated funding, declining enrollment funding, and the 2003-2004 adequacy study that led to the Continuing Adequacy Evaluation Act and the matrix used to set foundation funding. She also described later changes to the adequacy statute, the financial reporting requirements for districts, and the ongoing use of surveys, stakeholder testimony, and consultant studies in the biennial adequacy process. Members asked questions about whether private or homeschool programs could use public funds for expenses like utilities, whether stakeholders should include those groups, the difference between average daily membership and attendance, and whether school board members are surveyed; staff said those issues would need further research or were outside the scope of the presenters’ role.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have processed every bit of work that has been sent to the House.
• So, they were all vetted through the process.
• My point is that we through the process.
• <00:25:35.760> those night getting ready to process those night getting ready to process those
• Then we have to process the public.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It creates a similar reporting process for these other terminals, requiring merchants to report skimmers
• It delays the process, but also places directors in difficult positions with both the courts and the
• By requiring prompt... ...due process and prevent misuse.
• This collaborative process has created recommendations that will This collaborative process has created
• This bill does not alter the existing discovery process mandated under the Michael Morton Act.

Bills: SB330, SB663, SB1020, SB1152, SB1164, SB1896, SB2111, SB2196, SB2383, SB2581, SB2797, SB2798, SB2371

Keywords: county funding, prosecutors' offices, elections, law enforcement, local government, community supervision, budget approval, corrections department, strategic plan, judicial oversight, SB 1020, Texas, personal bond office, pretrial release, electronic monitoring, GPS monitoring, global positioning system, bond conditions, probation, parole

Summary: The committee heard several criminal justice bills, with testimony largely focused on public safety, court procedures, and local criminal justice administration. SB 2371 would expand mandatory skimmer-reporting requirements from gas pumps to ATMs, point-of-sale systems, and virtual currency kiosks, with the Texas Financial Crimes Intelligence Center saying centralized reporting would improve investigations, preserve evidence, and help identify organized criminal groups. SB 2581 would repeal a special law governing commissary funds in certain large counties; the sponsor and the Sheriff’s Association said it would restore parity with other counties while keeping spending subject to audit and inmate-benefit limits. Both bills were laid out and left pending after testimony, with no public witnesses opposing them at the hearing. The committee also heard SB 330, which would require voter approval before counties over a certain size reduce prosecutor funding, similar to an existing law for law enforcement budgets. Supporters argued prosecutors are essential to public safety and need stable funding, while an opponent from the Texas Civil Rights Project said the bill would restrict local budget flexibility and impose costly elections. SB 663 would remove district judges’ approval role for community supervision and corrections department budgets, replacing it with judge review after TDCJ-CJAD approval; probation officials said the change would reduce delays and confusion without reducing judicial oversight. SB 1020 would require more immediate sharing of ankle-monitor violation information and clarify that such records are not judicial work product; the Harris County DA’s office and Crime Stoppers supported it, citing inconsistent local practices and delays that can hinder prosecutions. The committee then took up SB 1164 on emergency detention and court-ordered mental health services. The bill, from the Texas Judicial Commission on Mental Health, would update emergency detention forms, clarify officer duties, allow filings in the county where a person is apprehended or located, and add a factor related to a person’s inability to recognize symptoms or appreciate treatment risks. Supporters included family members, law enforcement, and mental health and judicial witnesses who described cases where earlier intervention might have prevented tragedy; opponents warned the broader language could be misused and emphasized due process and the need for dangerousness to remain the standard. SB 2111 on indigent defense would expand access to counsel at first hearings, strengthen managed assigned counsel programs, create internships and fellowships, and adjust other defense-related procedures; the Texas Indigent Defense Commission and county defense program leaders supported it, while the committee substitute removed some provisions to reduce fiscal impact. Finally, SB 2383 would let recently retired DPS officers return to work in limited roles to help address staffing shortages, and SB 2797 would create reciprocal discovery requirements for criminal cases; prosecutors and some committee members said it would reduce trial surprise and improve truth-seeking, while others questioned whether the bill fully matched the state’s disclosure obligations and whether it could burden defense rights. Several bills were left pending after testimony, and the committee established a quorum later in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• WE FOCUSED ON PROCESSES AND ACTIVITIES DURING OCTOBER 22 THROUGH JANUARY 24 MOSTLY WITH SELECTED ACTIONS
• WHEN YOU SHOWED UP WHERE THERE SOP AND PROCESSES IN PLACE OR WAS THIS A BLANK SLATE. >> THERE WERE PROCESSES
• FEMA DOESN'T MAKE THIS PROCESS EASY TO WORK, BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO CAN HELP.
• IT SEEMS IN THIS PROCESS THERE ARE TIMELINES THAT TAKE A WHILE.
• WE NEED TO FIND WAYS TO MAKE THE SYSTEM AND PROCESS WORK BECAUSE ULTIMATELY IT IS ABOUT THE TRUST.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I appreciate your time and your attention to our collective bringing process. Thank you, Gina.
• process.
• Then the legislative process is basically, under all of the statutes, an up-or-down vote.
• Any questions about that process? Those class and comp packages. Any questions about that process?
• They have a different bargaining process.

Summary: The Joint Committee on Employment Relations met for work sessions on supplemental bargaining for Washington Public Employees Association (WPEA) agreements in general government and higher education, followed by an overview of the collective bargaining process. OFM staff explained that bargaining for the 2025-27 biennium began in 2024, reached tentative agreements, was not ratified in time for the October 1 deadline, resumed, and ultimately produced ratified agreements in August 2025 that were submitted for financial feasibility review under RCW 41.80.010. Staff outlined the tentative agreements’ costs and covered employee counts, including roughly 2,500 FTEs in general government and 2,100 in higher education, with estimated 2025-27 total fund costs of about $22.25 million and $13.5 million respectively. Staff then gave a broader briefing on how state collective bargaining works, including the bargaining calendar, the role of class and compensation review, the June revenue forecast, interest arbitration, and the October 1 submission deadline. They described the groups OFM bargains for, including general government, higher education, health care coalitions, and certain non-state provider groups such as adult family home providers, child care providers, and language access providers. In response to a question from Senator King, staff said the legislature requires bargaining for those non-state provider groups and has also provided interest arbitration for them. Staff also discussed bargaining priorities such as general wage increases, targeted classification adjustments, recruitment and retention, low-wage worker increases, and maintaining the health care premium split. In executive session, the committee voted to keep the current co-chairs, Senator Robinson and Representative Couture, through 2026. Members also voted to recognize that the committee met twice in 2025 and to set the 2026 meeting schedule at two meetings. The motions passed without opposition, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this is kind of an ongoing process. We're not expecting any major developments this interim.
• But yeah, it will be, I think, a long process of testing to see how it works.
• The LEAP committee holds a meeting to advance the budget format change process.
• Per usual, the validation process is not complete.
• If the members have any questions about the process, I can answer those.

Summary: The LEAP committee met on June 18, 2025, with introductions from members and staff, then received a clean audit report from the State Auditor covering 2020–2024. The audit reviewed accounts payable, general disbursements, theft-sensitive assets, and data backup/recovery, and found no findings. Staff also outlined the interim work plan, including a full rewrite of the capital budget application (Build Sum), updates to the transportation bond model and operating budget tools, website improvements, and continued research into secure, responsible AI use. Members asked about AI safeguards, keyword search improvements, and making the website more user-friendly, especially on mobile devices. The committee approved the July 8, 2024 minutes after a quorum was reached. It then considered and unanimously approved several budget format changes: the Department of Corrections moved chemical dependency and sex offender treatment into its health care program and renamed Program 700 from “Offender Change” to “Reentry Services”; the Department of Revenue moved the AMP program into its tax analysis and technology support program; and the Department of Transportation changed a toll program title and added new sub-programs for State Route 509 and State Route 167 toll operations to reflect new facilities and more accurate reporting. Kevin Feltis also provided staffing updates, noting the retirements of longtime LEAP staff, the hiring of three new associate consultants in October 2024, and an upcoming December 2025 retirement for Sherry Randage after decades of state service. The new staff members briefly introduced themselves and expressed enthusiasm for their work. The meeting ended with thanks to members and staff and adjournment after the committee completed its business.

Transcript Highlights:

• For each nominee, this will be the process.
• Please tell us about your vetting and interview process.
• Oh, I'm sorry, I don't know the process.
• So can you tell us about the vetting and interview process?
• He has a respect for the process.

Summary: The Committee on Director Nominations met with four members present and approved the prior minutes without objection. Chair Jay Kaufman outlined the committee’s role in reviewing executive nominations and explained the hearing process for three nominees: Mary Foote for the Office of Economic Opportunity, Debbie Johnston for the Department of Health Services, and Chuck Bassett. Foote did not appear for her hearing, and members discussed her absence and alleged omissions in her disclosure materials, including prior service with Planned Parenthood-related organizations. The committee then moved to reject her nomination, and the motion passed 3-2, recommending that the full Senate reject Mary Foote. Debbie Johnston, nominee to lead the Department of Health Services, appeared and gave an opening statement describing her Arizona background, prior Senate staff work, and more than 20 years with the Arizona Hospital and Health Care Association. She said her priorities at ADHS include rebuilding trust in public health licensing, improving stakeholder engagement, standardizing rulemaking communication, addressing alleged religious discrimination and retaliation concerns in licensing, and using technology and AI to improve efficiency. In questioning, senators pressed her on her management style, conflict-of-interest safeguards given her prior industry role, enforcement priorities, budget pressures, behavioral health and assisted living oversight, and the department’s response to COVID-19. Johnston said she would follow statutes, recuse herself from enforcement matters involving former contacts, and resign if directed to carry out an unlawful policy. She also said the department does not regulate therapy itself, only facilities, and that it would rely on legal counsel regarding the governor’s conversion-therapy executive order and related federal civil-rights allegations. Several senators focused on public health trust and the department’s pandemic response, with Johnston acknowledging concerns about closures, data collection, and communication during COVID-19 while saying she would review past after-action materials and be better prepared in the future. Public testimony from stakeholders in aging services and health care strongly supported her confirmation, praising her accessibility, responsiveness, and collaborative approach. After testimony, the vice chair moved to recommend Johnston’s confirmation to the full Senate. The roll call was underway when the transcript ended, with several members voting aye and one member expressing reservations about her not reviewing the pandemic after-action report before another crisis occurs.