Transcript Highlights:

• This is a pro police, pro Executives.
• Rather, it was about this particular executive order a year ago, which was titled as follows: imposing
• <03:47:55.120> They<03:47:55.359> have executive order was issued.
• They have executive order was issued.
• branch when a delegated to the executive branch when a national<03:49:37.120> emergency<03:49

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Thursday, February 12, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This has turned into a little bit of an executive session, but I'm doing that a lot this year because
• So when we actually come to executive session, we will have talked it out mostly, and it's helpful when
• Since there was some time, the committee moved into executive session and planned to start with House
• I am hereby opening the executive session on House Bill 1570 and I recognize myself to make a motion
• I am hereby opening the executive session on House Bill 1570 and I recognize myself to make a motion

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused primarily on House Bill 1087 and House Bill 123, both related to firearms. HB 1087 was introduced as a Second Amendment measure, but after questions from the chair and discussion with law enforcement, the sponsor agreed it should be set aside and referred to a study committee for further review, rather than advanced as written. The New Hampshire Chiefs of Police Association testified in opposition to the bill as written, while also indicating support for the sponsor’s proposed amendment or a study approach. The bulk of the discussion centered on HB 123, which would require the return of firearms after a not guilty verdict or dismissal. The sponsor and several members described the bill’s purpose as speeding up the return of property, but law enforcement and judicial branch witnesses raised concerns about federal law, the need to ensure a person is still legally eligible to possess firearms, and the bill’s 24-hour return requirement. Witnesses from the State Police and judicial branch explained the current process, including background checks through the state police gun line, and said the existing procedure already aims to return firearms promptly while allowing time to verify disqualifying information. Members and witnesses discussed possible amendments, including removing language that would bar background checks and instead tying return of firearms to completion of the check within a set time frame. Judicial branch and State Police witnesses said a process that requires a background check and return within a reasonable period, with notice if there is a delay or denial, would better address safety and legal concerns. The hearing ended without a vote; the committee closed the public hearing and indicated it would continue working on the language before executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the Executive Director of the Hawaii Division of Consumer Advocacy.
• employee or executive of a regulated regulated regulated utility?
• Have HEO executives<02:48:21.520> or<02:48:21.840> executives<02:48:22.319> of<02
• :48:22.560> any<02:48:22.720> other executives or executives of any other executives or
• Did you make that HEO executives. Did you make that statement?<02:48:45.840> No.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee held an informational briefing on the Public Utilities Commission’s performance-based regulation (PBR) framework and the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs’ whistleblower complaint process. Chair Jared Kohole opened the meeting, noted it was informational only with no public testimony, and explained that members would hear presentations and then have an opportunity for questions. The committee heard first from Ulupono Initiative, which provided background on why utilities are regulated, how Hawaii’s cost-of-service model and rate cases work, and why PBR was adopted to shift utility incentives away from a capital-investment bias and toward performance, efficiency, cost control, and policy goals such as renewable energy and reliability. Ulupono described Hawaii’s PBR structure as a five-year multi-year rate plan with annual revenue adjustments, a customer dividend, a Z factor for extraordinary exogenous events, and an exceptional project recovery mechanism for large projects. It also outlined performance incentive mechanisms tied to renewable portfolio standard progress, interconnection speed, reliability, and shared savings. The presentation said the current docket is evaluating a possible hybrid approach that would combine forward-looking forecasting with historical results, and Ulupono advocated for stronger incentives, arguing the current rewards are too small relative to utility revenues and should be more meaningful to better align utility behavior with legislative intent. The PUC then presented its own overview, emphasizing that the PBR docket is open and active and that the briefing was limited to the record to avoid ex parte concerns. The commission described the development of PBR in Hawaii through multiple phases beginning in 2018: an initial collaborative phase to set goals, a formal contested-case phase that produced the initial framework, later phases adding scorecards, reported metrics, and additional performance incentive mechanisms, and subsequent refinements including sunset of some mechanisms and adjustments after the August 2023 Maui wildfires. The PUC said the framework is intended to be customer-centric, administratively efficient, and protective of utility financial integrity, and that current work includes evaluating how to balance forward-looking and historical test-year approaches within the rebasing process. No votes or formal actions were taken at the briefing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We stand Hakim Mansafi, executive director, Hawaii Public Housing Authority.
• :24.959> public executive director, Hawaii public executive director, Hawaii public housing<00
• I'm here as the executive director for the Hawaii State Association of Counties.
• <00:18:22.400> the<00:18:22.480> Hawaii the executive director for the Hawaii the executive
• I am Brian McCair on behalf of DECAP Executive Director Kirby Shaw.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard several housing, landlord-tenant, and condominium-related measures. Senate Bill 62, relating to the Hawaii Public Housing Authority, would allow HPHA-owned parcels and related areas such as parking lots to be closed to the public with posted signage; HPHA strongly supported the bill, saying it would help reduce loitering, drinking, and other problems, and no further testimony was offered. Senate Bill 822, relating to the landlord tenant code, would create a three-year working group in the Department of the Attorney General to study and improve the residential landlord-tenant code. The Judiciary supported the measure but said the scope should be narrowed; the Attorney General opposed leading the group and suggested another agency should do so; Hawaii Realtors and the Hawaii Worker Center supported the concept and suggested moving the chairmanship to the Judiciary and including Legal Aid participation. The Judiciary said it could chair the group if the bill were narrowed to matters within the court’s purview. Senate Bill 38, relating to housing, would limit counties from imposing stricter conditions, AMI requirements, or fee-waiver reductions on certain affordable housing proposals if those changes would increase project costs. HHFDC supported the bill, saying county changes after state approval create uncertainty for developers, while the Hawaii State Association of Counties opposed it as an intrusion on local authority and a restriction on county safety and infrastructure conditions. Members asked about whether existing county review periods were sufficient, and the county association said the main concern was the bill’s language limiting counties from making cost-increasing conditions. Senate Bill 146, relating to condominiums, would revise alternative dispute resolution procedures for condo disputes, including evaluative mediation and binding arbitration. The Hawaii Real Estate Commission said it took no position overall but supported a $150 mediation fee and asked for a similar arbitration fee; Community Associations Institute supported the bill with suggested amendments; however, most testimony was strongly opposed by condominium owners and advocates, who said the bill had been changed to the detriment of owners and would increase costs and reduce protections. The committee noted 44 testimonies on the bill, with 2 in support, 37 in opposition, and 2 with comments. Senate Bill 253, relating to condominium reserves, would require a detailed budget summary to stand on its own, remove a good-faith defense for certain noncompliant budgets, and clarify standing and the association’s burden regarding substantial compliance. Hawaii Realtors and Community Associations Institute supported the measure as improving transparency and giving owners and buyers a clearer picture of association finances. Greg Msakian also supported it, arguing it would help owners and describing problems he experienced with budget committee exclusion and budget noncompliance in his own association. The discussion ended while testimony on the bill was still underway, with additional witnesses expected.

Transcript Highlights:

• Rico House of Representatives from 1973 to 1984, worked in the executive branch from 1984 to 1988, and
• The Do No Harm Act builds on President Trump's day-one executive order ending the chemical castration
• President Trump's day one executive President Trump's day one executive order<02:08:42.800> ending
• <04:45:37.240> order<04:45:38.000> that Trump issued an executive order that Trump
• <05:01:16.080> order choice issuing an executive order choice issuing an executive order directing

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Wednesday, March 26, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm Laura Milikin, the executive director of New Hampshire Hunger Solutions.
• Going on to executive session. Let's see which one you can stuff.
• Again, didn't know when we were going to be executing, so I had it tucked away in my folder.
• Again, didn't know when we were going to be executing, so I had it tucked away in my folder.
• Can I have a motion to get out of executive? I'll—oh, sorry, go ahead.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And it's easy when I don't have to execute.
• And it's easy when I don't have to execute.
• It depends a lot more on who's executing it and why than what the statute says.
• I'm the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Independent Bankers Association of Texas.
• It was after grants had been awarded and before execution of grant agreements.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the executive director of the Praxis Project.
• My career, I'm a former executive director for Latino Culture for Healthy California as well.
• Another TikTok executive acknowledged that children watch because, quote, the algorithm is really good
• By age 16, adolescents have stronger executive functioning, better emotional regulation, and greater
• The extradition protection is only in an executive order currently.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Aaron Patterson, Executive Director of the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy. Uh, Mr.
• Aaron Patterson, Executive Director of the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy.
• Aaron Patterson, Executive<00:39:32.040> Director<00:39:32.400> of<00:39:32.480> the
• <00:39:32.520> Minnesota Executive Director of the Minnesota Executive Director of the Minnesota
• Aaron Patterson, Executive Director of the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy. Proceed.

Bills: HF4712, HF4801, HF3756, HF4860, HF4931, HF4289, HF4460

Keywords: residential pools, swimming classes, certification, private business, health safety, health care, prior authorization, managed care, medical assistance, mental health, substance use treatment, chronic conditions, health insurance, insulin, healthcare access, pharmacy regulations, patient assistance, affordable medication, healthcare, pharmacy

Summary: The committee met at 1:00 p.m., confirmed a quorum, and approved the April 8, 2026 minutes. The first bill heard was House File 4712, which was laid over after the committee adopted a DE2 amendment. Representative Schultz said the bill would create a narrow additional exception to public pool limitations so highly certified swimming instructors could use certain pools for specialized infant, youth, and developmental-disability swim instruction. The only testifier, Tessa Seppelt, described ISR instruction as water-safety and drowning-prevention training for very young children and children with developmental delays, and said access to appropriate facilities is the main barrier. Members raised questions about emergency egress, public safety, and insurance coverage, and the author said he would follow up on those concerns. The committee then took up House File 4801, a bill by Representative Nadeau aimed at health care program integrity. He said it would align commercial and Medicaid partners to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse by changing prior authorization and retrospective review processes, improving data sharing on suspected fraud, addressing conflicting or duplicative services, allowing managed care organizations to verify provider credentials, and making risk corridors in MCO contracts permanent. The Minnesota Council of Health Plans supported the bill, saying it would help detect fraud and improve coordination, while the Minnesota chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics opposed it, arguing that expanded prior authorization would delay care, increase physician burden, and harm children with chronic conditions. Members debated patient safety, fraud detection, and whether the bill would undermine recent prior-authorization reforms. The bill was laid over. House File 3756, a technical update to the insulin safety net program, was also laid over. Representative Backer said the bill clarifies that a hospital-use intravenous insulin product is not part of the program because it is sold only to health care institutions and infused by practitioners, not dispensed to patients for self-use. The Board of Pharmacy testified that the language was drafted to avoid affecting future legitimate uses, and members asked whether the definition could limit new uses if treatments change. The committee then began House File 4860, but the transcript cuts off before the bill’s presentation is completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• These higher-level decisions will require community engagement, executive direction, and interagency
• require community engagement, executive require community engagement, executive direction,<01:22
• Three, evaluate the need for independent counsel and dedicated executive leadership, i.e., the executive
• Three, evaluate the need for independent counsel and dedicated executive leadership.
• I.e., the executive director.

Bills: SB3253, SB2401, SB3169, SB17, SB3014, SB3032, SB1432, SB2002, SB2972, SB3247

Keywords: conservation, endangered species, wildlife preservation, native birds, biodiversity, sanctuary, nonprofit, DLNR, agricultural district, land use, chapter 195D, chapter 205, chapter 42F, state funding, public purpose, habitat restoration, predator-free sanctuary, ecosystem restoration, Zealandia, wildlife refuge

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land heard testimony on SB 5253 SD2 relating to conservation and SB 2401 relating to regional shoreline mitigation district, with the chair emphasizing short testimony limits and the need to finish before session. On SB 5253, DLNR said it stood on its written testimony and answered questions about the bill’s proposed nonprofit endangered species sanctuary. Members asked whether existing entities or agreements, such as land trusts, private landowners, and DLNR safe harbor agreements, could accomplish similar conservation goals without creating a new entity. DLNR said similar work already exists, but it was not aware of a comparable sanctuary model in the state. A member also questioned language suggesting for-profit businesses in the sanctuary, and DLNR said the intent appeared to be sales of outreach or similar materials, though it agreed that such activities could be handled by a nonprofit. The bulk of the hearing focused on SB 2401, which would create a regional shoreline adaptation/mitigation framework. The Department of the Attorney General said it had concerns about inconsistent use of the terms “mitigation” and “adaptation,” warning of possible title-subject issues. DLNR said it was neutral on the terminology and more concerned with the substance, and noted that the bill would not waive permits; any plan would still require environmental review and applicable state and county permits. DLNR also supported OHA’s recommendation to consider impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during regional planning, and said the bill’s language on temporary shoreline protection measures could help address the gap between emergency permits and longer-term planning while avoiding a hardening-only approach. The Office of Planning supported the regional planning concept but noted it is not a regulatory agency and would need to work with DLNR and the Land Board. OHA supported the bill’s planning-based approach but recommended amendments to require assessment of impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during plan development and to clarify that environmental review would still apply at the project level. Testifiers from the Ka‘anapali Steering Committee strongly supported the bill, saying it would provide a regional framework for ongoing erosion problems while preserving full regulatory authority and normal permitting, and they proposed amendments to standardize terminology, create a limited pathway for temporary shoreline protection, and address ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Members discussed the meaning of “mitigation” versus “adaptation,” the scope of shoreline hardening, and whether the bill would help the legislature take a broader, more holistic view of shoreline decisions. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Ann Mavity, and I'm the executive director of Minnesota Housing Partnership.
• Mavity, executive director of Minnesota Housing Partnership back to the committee.
• My name is Ann Mavity, and I'm the executive director of Minnesota Housing Partnership.
• My name is Christine Davis, and I'm the executive director of Hearth Connection, a St.
• I'm the executive Randy Wickham.

Bills: HF3425, HF3424, HF1385

Keywords: supportive housing, grants, housing assistance, funding, Minnesota Statutes, eviction, rent, nonpayment of rent, landlord-tenant, residential tenant, notice to quit, unlawful detainer, housing, lease violation, late fees, rental assistance, legal aid, tenant rights, Minnesota Statutes 504B.321, pre-eviction notice

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the executive director and academic dean for the Governor Scholars Program.
• > and<00:04:36.479> academic I'm the executive director and academic I'm the executive
• Is this maybe named executive director.
• I'm the executive director of the Kentucky Commission on Military Affairs.
• I'm the executive director of Bullard.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee heard presentations from the Family, Career and Community Leaders of America and the Governor Scholars Program. The FCCLA student speaker described how career and technical education helped her gain certifications, work in early childhood settings, and recognize a child who needed speech help, emphasizing support for CTE, FCCLA, and related student organizations. The Governor Scholars Program presentation, led by Dr. Jennifer Price with student speakers Max Corbett and Abigail Ziggler, focused on the program’s role in serving about 1,500 rising seniors each summer, its history since 1983, its statewide reach, and its impact on leadership development, college readiness, and keeping students connected to Kentucky. Members praised the students and program, and several shared personal stories about the program’s long-term benefits. Representative Camuel asked about funding, and Dr. Price said the program’s request was $2.1 million to maintain current enrollment levels of about 1,020 scholars for 2026; no vote was taken on that request during this segment. The committee then took up House Bill 498, sponsored by Representative Duvall, with Aaron Looper of Graduation Alliance testifying in support. A committee substitute was adopted after explanation. The substitute broadened eligibility for accredited providers to include public and nonprofit entities, allowed each county an opportunity to provide services with a $200,000 aggregate maximum per county, reduced the dollars per credit to serve more students, and made date corrections. Representative Duvall said the bill was a workforce measure developed from the Workforce Attraction and Retention Task Force and aimed at adults who lack a high school diploma but have two years or less remaining to graduate. Looper said the bill would create a pathway for adults to earn a regionally accredited high school diploma, paired with workforce and industry-recognized credentials, and stressed that it would not compete with GED programs, which are better suited for adults farther from graduation. He said the model is pay-for-performance, with providers paid only after milestones are completed, and that it would be available online, in person, or in hybrid form to improve rural access. In response to questions, he said students would not be charged fees, providers would handle transcript retrieval and remediation, and the program would include built-in accountability measures. He also said the budget request is $2 million per year, with the goal of maintaining the current level of service and eventually expanding if successful. Members asked about how the program differs from existing adult education options, access in all counties, and whether there are deserts in service availability; Looper said the online model and provider outreach are intended to address those gaps.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm Angie Marcato, executive director of the White State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and we
• We also had written testimony all in support from the Executive Office on Early Learning, Executive Office
• We also had written testimony all in support from the Executive Office on Early Learning, Executive Office
• I'm Angie Marcato, executive director, Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
• I'm Angie Marcato, executive members.

Bills: HB1546

Keywords: Medicaid, health insurance, healthcare access, insurance subsidies, pilot program, affordable care, preventive services, low-income, community engagement, 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 2083, which would add homeless shelters to Hawaii’s drug-free/safe-zone protections. The City and County prosecutor’s office strongly supported the bill, saying service providers asked for the change because drug activity near shelters can undermine recovery efforts. The Office of the Public Defender opposed the measure, focusing on a possible notice problem because many shelters are not readily identifiable and the bill’s 750-foot distance requirement could be difficult to apply. The Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii also opposed the bill, arguing it would expand criminalization of poverty and drug use and that drug-free zone laws are ineffective and disproportionately harmful. The prosecutor’s office said it would do more research on the notice concern. The committee then moved on without taking a vote in the transcript provided. The committee next discussed HB 2087, which would change the treatment of abuse of family or household member cases by ending the deferred-acceptance pilot and returning to the prior statute. The prosecutor’s office supported the bill, saying the pilot had not reduced backlog as intended and that domestic violence cases should remain petty misdemeanors without deferral. The Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the Public Defender’s Office both opposed HB 2087, instead urging extension of the pilot for another five years so the legislature can better evaluate how deferred acceptance is working. They said deferrals can be a useful incentive for behavior change and that more data is needed before ending the program. Committee members questioned the prosecutor about why Hawaii should differ from other counties and whether repeat offenders could keep receiving deferrals; the prosecutor said the deferral is available only once and reiterated support for returning to the old statute. The committee then heard HB 2096 on aggravated circumstances in child protective proceedings. The family court and Attorney General’s Office supported the bill, saying current law limits aggravated-circumstances findings to the early return hearing, which can prevent findings in the most serious abuse cases when key evidence is not yet available. They said the bill would allow such findings later in the case and, with proposed amendments, would let the court consolidate aggravated-circumstances and termination-of-parental-rights hearings to reduce delay and appeals. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii opposed the measure, arguing it would expand state power in family matters and could worsen outcomes for parents and children. Committee questions focused on the amended language, including what “another court of competent jurisdiction” means and whether a charge alone would be enough; the judiciary responded that criminal courts are included, but a hearing and opportunity to defend would still be required. Finally, the committee took up HB 1959, another domestic violence measure. The Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Public Defender’s Office, the Crime Victim Compensation Commission, the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women, and county prosecuting offices testified in support. Supporters said the bill would extend the pilot program while keeping deferred acceptance of guilty pleas in place, giving more time to evaluate whether the program is working and whether a more formal diversion model should be developed. The coalition also suggested technical fixes to ensure judiciary data reporting continues and that the deferred-acceptance statute is not inadvertently repealed. No vote or final action was taken in the transcript before the committee moved on to the next bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Braxton Holly, who's the executive director of Walker West here with me this afternoon.
• I'd like to call the executive director, um, Mr. Arval? Arsal? Val Aral? Okay, great.
• Also, next I'll call the executive director of Minnesota FFA Association, Mr. Brown.
• director of Minnesota FFA executive director of Minnesota FFA Association<00:16:08.959> um<00
• Executive Director Erica Rivers<00:41:08.200> thank<00:41:08.359> you<00:41:08.520>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And I look forward to the work that we're going to do, the department, the executive branch, in this
• I'm John Jasy, executive director with the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, or BWSR as it's
• director with the Minnesota executive director with the Minnesota Board<00:52:09.880> of<00:52
• <00:52:22.160> director<00:52:22.480> with and John jasy executive director with and
• John jasy executive director with the<00:52:22.680> Minnesota<00:52:23.079> Board<00:52

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• It's one of several dedicated funds that are essential for the successful implementation and execution
• successful implementation and execution successful implementation and execution of<01:25:04.400>
• <01:32:58.920> session<01:32:59.360> for<01:32:59.560> anyone executive session
• for anyone executive session for anyone interested<01:33:01.560> okay<01:33:02.000> could
• session next week to go on Executive session next week okay okay e e<01:34:23.719> for

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Utilities earn bigger profits and utility executives do earn bigger bonuses by spending more money.
• So that's 86% support for tying About a couple other provisions in this bill: 86% supported tying executive
• Now, I heard some testimony about tying executive compensation as about aligning incentives, but ultimately
• It doesn't make adoption or execution of any project contingent, for example, on that long-term proceeding
• Analysis and does that stall out your ability to execute on project?

Summary: The committee first heard SB 804, the Hydrogen Pipeline Safety Act, from Senator Arreguín. He said the bill would designate the State Fire Marshal as the safety regulator for intrastate hydrogen pipelines and require hydrogen-specific standards, while not mandating any pipeline construction or bypassing environmental review. Supporters included labor groups, utility employees, and the City of Burbank, while Air Products opposed unless amended, citing concerns about the bill’s specificity, fee structure, and the need for a hydrogen-specific rulemaking process. The committee discussed safety, fees, and regulatory certainty, and later passed SB 804 on a 9-0 vote to Emergency Management with commitment to take amendments. The committee then took up SB 905 by Senator Becker, aimed at reducing electricity rates by changing utility incentives. The bill would tie part of executive compensation to keeping rates below inflation, require more performance metrics, and allow the CPUC to consider lower returns on equity for certain lower-risk investments and alternative financing options. Support came from consumer, environmental, agricultural, and large energy user groups, while Southern California Edison, CalChamber, PG&E, and utility labor groups raised concerns that the bill could reduce investment, create regulatory uncertainty, and raise borrowing costs. After extensive discussion about utility affordability, wildfire costs, and capital markets, the committee passed SB 905 on a 7-1 vote to Appropriations. SB 913, also by Senator Becker, would create a clearer pathway for distributed energy resources such as batteries and smart thermostats to participate in the resource adequacy market and compete with utility-scale resources. Supporters said the bill would better use existing grid capacity, lower costs, and build on the state’s Demand Side Grid Support Program; PG&E opposed unless amended, saying the use case was not yet proven and was already being addressed in other rulemakings. After the committee accepted amendments, one opposition group moved to neutral and another said it might do so after reviewing the changes. The bill passed 8-0 to Appropriations and was placed on call. Several other measures were heard and advanced, including SB 1196 on faster utility hookups for small energization projects such as ADUs and EV chargers, SB 931 reauthorizing the Diablo Canyon Essential Services Mitigation Fund through 2028, SB 1158 reducing the frequency of joint reliability assessments from quarterly to twice yearly, and SB 1245 directing further study of California’s gasoline market and potential use of non-CARBOB fuel during supply disruptions. SB 1196 and SB 931 both passed with broad support and no opposition after amendments, SB 1158 passed without testimony, and SB 1245 drew strong support from consumer and environmental advocates but opposition from fuel industry and business groups concerned about costs, confidentiality, and fuel standards.

Transcript Highlights:

• I am Lisa Geisbon, Executive Director of Citizens for Public Schools, here to speak in favor of an act
• president of the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association Board of Directors as well as the Executive
• While the legislature and the executive branch deserve credit for their commitment to the funding side
• It could support student members to participate and vote in executive sessions. According to...
• My name is Jorge Van Hul, and I serve as Executive Director of Latinos for Education in Massachusetts

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education heard testimony on several bills centered on school accountability, receivership, graduation requirements, charter school access, community schools, school libraries, and student voting rights. Much of the discussion focused on the Thrive Act, S. 374, which would end state receivership and change the state’s accountability approach. Supporters, including educators, parents, advocacy groups, and students, argued that receivership has not improved outcomes in districts such as Lawrence, Holyoke, Southbridge, Boston, and the Dever, and that local communities should have more control, with greater emphasis on community schools, wraparound services, and broader measures of school quality. They also supported related bills on community schools and school library standards, and several witnesses backed a bill to expand student representative voting rights on school committees. Opponents of S. 374, especially charter school leaders, parents, students, and some education advocates, focused on Section 4 of the bill, which would change the charter school net school spending cap in the lowest-performing districts. They argued that the provision would reduce access to charter seats in communities where families are seeking more options, and that schools such as Roxbury Prep, Excel Academy, Brook, Veritas Prep, and Libertas Academy have produced strong results for students, including students of color, low-income students, and students with special needs. Several witnesses said the section would force schools to shrink or close and would remove opportunities for families in districts with long waitlists. Committee members questioned witnesses on both the effectiveness of receivership and the charter school cap language. Chair Lewis and Chair Gordon emphasized the need for a better accountability system and noted concerns about whether current measures, including MCAS-based designations, accurately reflect school quality. Some witnesses said they had discussed the possibility of removing Section 4 from the Thrive Act and suggested it might be addressed in separate charter reform legislation. No votes were taken during the hearing; testimony was received and the committee later closed testimony on S. 374 and several related bills before moving on to the student voting rights bill, S. 367.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's part of the governor's executive budget.
• And then on the non-state side, that project manager has to concur in a change order being executed before
• top of my head, but if it's an LPA project, a local project, right, then the locals will help to execute
• If it's a DOTD project, we're obviously executing both pre-construction, engineering design, as well
• My name is Michael Hare, the executive director for CPRA. And I'm Candace Obie, the CFO.

Summary: The committee met for an informational hearing focused largely on the state capital outlay process and House Bill 2. Roger Husser and Matt Baker of the Division of Administration/Facility Planning and Control described how the office prepares and administers the capital outlay bill, said the bill has grown substantially over five years, and argued that recent changes in culture, staffing, project management, cash-flow analysis, and use of third-party support have more than doubled project expenditures and improved delivery. Members asked about the use and cost of third-party project managers, delegation of smaller projects to agencies, hiring difficulties, and whether the changes represented better interpretation of existing law versus statutory changes. Husser said some statutes were amended, some internal customs were removed, and the office would provide a list of those changes. He also explained that the office is trying to move away from overly rigid practices and toward faster project completion while still following public-bid and oversight rules. A major portion of the discussion centered on the size and structure of the capital outlay bill, especially the gap between Priority 1 cash capacity and the much larger Priority 5 backlog. Husser said the current annual Priority 1 limit is tied to construction inflation and is about $574 million, with additional surplus funds also available, but that the bill contains far more Priority 5 funding than can realistically move in a five-year plan. He and members discussed dormant projects, scope creep, legacy projects that have sat in the bill for years, and the problem of false expectations for non-state entities. Proposed solutions included limiting Priority 5 to five times Priority 1, requiring annual re-endorsement by members, setting district or project caps for non-state projects, requiring time limits and reporting for grant-like non-state projects, placing matches in escrow, requiring design readiness before submission, and consolidating the many existing reporting requirements into one clearer report. Members also discussed bundling multiple projects under one agency project, which the House had begun piloting for LSU, UL Lafayette, Southern, and DOTD, and which Husser said could improve flexibility, reduce overappropriation, and better reflect actual spending. Baker then explained cash-flow management and the commitment process, saying FPC now analyzes projects annually to estimate what can actually be spent in the next fiscal year and uses commitments to allow projects to proceed when future-year funding is expected. He said overappropriations can result from poor cash-flow estimates, delays, dormant projects, or projects coming in under budget, and that the office is already reworking cash-flow assumptions and reappropriating savings where possible. Members also raised concerns about change orders and low bids; staff said project managers review change orders closely, require concurrence on non-state projects, and sometimes reduce scope to keep projects within budget. After FPC’s presentation, the committee heard the beginning of Louisiana Economic Development’s capital outlay discussion, where LED explained that its projects generally fall into three categories, including the Economic Development Awards Program and Site Readiness Program, both used to support targeted economic development and job creation.

Transcript Highlights:

• that they four times a year and provided that they have<01:25:39.440> an<01:25:39.520> executive
• <01:25:40.160> committee<01:25:40.520> that<01:25:40.760> meets have an executive
• committee that meets have an executive committee that meets more<01:25:41.200> frequently.
• <01:26:00.120> Instead, executive committee committee.
• Instead, executive committee committee.

Keywords: 927, senate, all