Transcript Highlights:

• And each of those uh review<00:06:51.120><c> packages</c><00:06:51.759><c> were</c><00:06:52.000><c>
• >> No, I mean, it was just a review with them.
• It was u a not a uh a review with them.
• Nathan has reviewed it. He doesn't think it's intrusive of any work they would be hanging.
• I have to a draft for review of anou.

Committee: Joint Capitol Interpretive Exhibits and Wayfinding Subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• And right now it's—we just turned it over to the AG's for their review, and hopefully we can get that
• </c><00:26:57.840><c> of</c><00:26:58.000><c> our</c> with cases but internal review of our with cases
• review and and hopefully<00:27:42.080><c> we</c><00:27:42.240><c> can</c><00:27:42.400><c> get</c><00
• </c> case where there's regular review case where there's regular review hearings,<00:54:49.760><c> there's
• But do we know if services for review.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:15:14.440><c> Uh</c> Review Committee to the commission.
• Uh Review Committee to the commission.
• Just for the committee's information, the trauma review board is a state board that exists.
• </c> when you're reviewing when you're reviewing as<01:16:38.680><c> you</c><01:16:38.800><c> go?
• This update will add a trauma medical review committee member to the commission, and they'll review and

Committee: House Transportation

Summary: House Transportation opened public hearings on three Senate bills and discussed a fourth scheduling issue. On SB 499, which would change Traffic Safety Commission reporting requirements, the sponsor’s representative said the bill would require annual aggregated data on the causes of traffic collisions in New Hampshire and recommendations to address them. Members asked about the added Trauma Medical Review Committee seat, and a representative explained that it is a longstanding state board of emergency and trauma professionals; the bill had already been amended and passed unanimously earlier in the process. On SB 500, concerning restroom access for certain commercial motor vehicle operators, the sponsor and trucking-industry supporters said the measure arose from concerns raised by female truck drivers and was intended to require larger commercial facilities with available public or employee restrooms to allow truck drivers to use them when there are no public safety concerns. Supporters from the New Hampshire Motor Transport Association said driver shortages make it important to recruit and retain women, and that lack of bathroom access is a significant barrier. Committee members asked about the scope of the problem and whether the issue affected male and female drivers differently. The committee then heard SB 559, which would reduce the minimum allowable speed limit on locally controlled roads. Supporters, including bicyclists and the Bike-Walk Alliance, testified that lower speeds improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers, citing personal crash experiences and national guidance supporting lower urban speed limits where warranted by traffic or engineering studies. They emphasized the bill would not mandate lower limits statewide but would give towns local discretion. Members questioned whether the group would support 15 mph limits and how congestion and travel-time concerns were weighed. A Department of Transportation official testified neutrally, saying the agency had no formal position but had concerns about public perception and possible spillover to unnumbered state roads. The chair also noted an earlier scheduling problem that prevented immediate executive action on a bill until later in the day.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:08:41.440><c> And</c><00:08:41.519><c> I</c> the utilization review process.
• And I the utilization review process.
• And again, I'm I'm looking at review.
• We're not cutting back on any utilization review.
• But I will say that we have... jurisdiction that we reviewed in that jurisdiction that we reviewed in

Committee: Senate Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• Additional time for review.
• Additional time for review.
• Additional time for review.
• Additional time for review.
• </c> time review. time review.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:23:38.760><c> at</c> under go multiple independent reviews at under go multiple independent reviews
• </c><00:30:55.559><c> process</c> an essential part of the review process an essential part of the review
• The Princeton Review will guarantee your kid a 31-plus on the ACT.
• The Princeton Review will guarantee your kid a 31-plus on the ACT.
• The Princeton Review will guarantee your kid a 31-plus on the ACT.

Committee: Senate Education Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> chance to review the minutes? chance to review the minutes?
• </c><00:15:34.639><c> the</c> had plenty of chances to review the had plenty of chances to review the
• </c> and then the the the current review and then the the the current review process<00:34:27.520><c>
• I heard my co-chair talk about the desire to have agencies review.
• I heard my co-chair talk about the desire to have agencies review.

Committee: House Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for certainly giving us an opportunity to review the cleanup of AB 715.
• One is that we typically rely on the State Board of Education to review and approve all instructional
• One is that we typically rely on the State Board of Education to review and approve all instructional
• When I first had an opportunity to review it, I said, is this really possible?
• I look forward to reviewing the amendments. Thank you.

Summary: The committee heard several education-related bills, with the most extensive discussion focused on AB 2189, AB 2615, AB 2496, AB 1750, and AB 1644. AB 2189 would create an $800,000 grant program through the State Council on Developmental Disabilities to support a statewide parent network for special education advocacy and training. Supporters said families need stronger coordination and information to navigate special education, while an opponent argued the bill could duplicate existing family-led organizations. The bill passed 6-0 and was sent to Appropriations, held on call for add-on votes. AB 2615, a cleanup bill to AB 715 on antisemitism and instructional materials, drew the most controversy. The authors said it was intended to clarify prior commitments by removing references to professional responsibility standards, refining the “factually accurate” language, and clarifying how discriminatory materials are handled. Supporters said it would help protect students from discrimination, while many educators, civil rights groups, and other organizations opposed it unless amended, warning that the factual-accuracy language could chill teaching and be applied too broadly. The committee chair and members raised concerns about implementation but ultimately supported moving the bill forward; it passed 5-0 and was held on call. AB 2496 would streamline school accountability reporting by making the California School Dashboard the primary transparency tool, phasing out the School Accountability Report Card over time, and making mid-year LCAP reporting optional. Supporters said this would reduce duplication and administrative burden while preserving access to key data; opponents worried families could lose the simplicity and accessibility of the current SARC and that the mid-year update still serves an important purpose. The bill was approved 3-0 and held on call. AB 1750, which would extend full salary for an additional five months for school employees who exhaust sick leave due to illness or injury, was supported as a dignity and retention measure but opposed by administrators over staffing and cost concerns; it passed 4-0 and was held on call. AB 1644 would require a bell-to-bell smartphone ban in TK-8 and recommend it for high school, with exceptions for instructional and safety needs; supporters said phones are harming attention and learning, while opponents argued districts had just adopted local policies and needed more flexibility. The transcript ends during discussion of that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's why, earlier this year, the Speaker convened an outcomes review hearing that was facilitated by
• So we will need more time to fully review what is proposed for us.
• So not having had the chance to fully review the bill, it's been available for less than 24 hours.
• We are opposed unless amended to the bill, currently reviewing the committee analysis.
• So both your position is still reviewing and yours is opposed.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• It's an internal review board. Currently, we have many of them.
• ...external review board. Now, where does that come from?
• So what, for example, like an internal review board or institutional review board does is it looks at
• that type of research, and they review that process.
• And I'm just learning about the external review board.

Committee: House Commerce, Consumer Protection, and International Affairs

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 267, which would change the membership rules for the Louisiana State Board of Home Inspectors by adjusting appointment qualifications, term limits, and nomination procedures. Vice Chair Thomas explained the bill was meant to address the lack of nominations from existing entities and to allow the governor more flexibility, especially in smaller districts. After adopting a technical amendment, the committee reported HB 267 favorably. The committee then considered House Bill 478 on utility overcharge reimbursements. The bill, as amended, requires utilities to clearly label reimbursements on customer bills and sets a deadline for issuing refunds. After discussion with the Public Service Commission and utility representatives, the committee changed the reimbursement timeline from 45 days to 90 days and clarified that the bill would not interfere with larger settlement or regulatory credits. HB 478 was then reported favorably as amended. The longest discussion centered on House Bill 924, a consumer protection measure aimed at contractors who solicit residential property owners after declared disasters. The author said the bill was intended to curb predatory storm-chasing and fraudulent insurance-related practices, while still allowing emergency mitigation work. The committee adopted technical amendments and then a conceptual amendment shortening the catastrophe response period from six months to 30 days. Testimony was split: the Insurance Commissioner and some roofing industry witnesses supported the bill as a way to deter fraud, while other contractors argued it would hurt small businesses, limit legitimate door-to-door work, and not solve enforcement problems. The bill remained under consideration after extensive testimony and public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's an Institutional Review Board. Currently, we have many of them.
• So what, for example, like an internal review board or institutional review board does is it looks at
• that type of research, and they review that process.
• are those external review boards that could help us expedite this process.
• And I’m just learning about the external review board.

Bills: HB267 , HB478 , HB617 , HB659 , HB800 , HB922 , HB924 , HB947 , HB1166 , HB1223

Committees: House Commerce , House Commerce, Consumer Protection, and International Affairs

Keywords: home inspectors, board membership, licensing, term limits, Louisiana State Board, utility, reimbursement, overcharges, consumer protection, economic relief, hidden fees, junk fees, drip pricing, price transparency, mandatory fees, surcharges, unfair trade practices, advertising disclosures, total price, service fees

Transcript Highlights:

• . review. review.
• </c><00:35:18.880><c> plans</c><00:35:19.520><c> and</c> experts in reviewing plans and experts in reviewing
• Um, Um, Um, so,<00:35:38.440><c> these</c><00:35:38.840><c> plan</c><00:35:39.160><c> review</c><00:35
• have been so, these plan review services have been offered<00:35:40.440><c> in</c><00:35:40.520><c>
• to be reviewing in these buildings. buildings. buildings.

Committee: Senate Labor

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill represents a pragmatic, common-sense approach to improving the housing element review process
• And the second part is ensuring that we get clarity and certainty in the housing element review process
• This exaction was never disclosed to HCD during the housing element review.
• I appreciate the author for bringing the bill, as well as the committee for reviewing it.
• Appreciate the author for bringing the bill and as well as the committee for reviewing it.

Summary: The Assembly Local Government Committee heard a long agenda of housing, water, and local finance bills, with the chair repeatedly reminding attendees about hearing rules and noting that several measures were being heard without a quorum at first. Early items included AB 407, which would broaden eligibility for state-run loan and financing programs to help small businesses fund environmental, seismic, and ADA upgrades, and AB 93, which would require data centers to estimate and report water use and follow state best practices. AB 93 drew support from water advocates and local government groups, while the Data Center Coalition opposed it, arguing the bill could be overly restrictive, difficult to retrofit, and raise trade secret or security concerns. The committee also heard AB 650 on housing element review, AB 1044 on creating a new Tulare County groundwater sustainability agency, and AB 523 on allowing proxy voting for single-representative member agencies on the Metropolitan Water District board; all drew broad support from local agencies and related stakeholders and no recorded opposition in the room. Several housing bills were presented as part of a broader fast-track housing package. AB 507 would streamline adaptive reuse of office buildings into housing, especially in downtowns with high vacancy; supporters said it would revive urban cores and help meet housing and climate goals, while the League of California Cities and a few cities opposed it unless amended, citing concerns about one-size-fits-all by-right approval and fee limitations. AB 1294 would create a universal housing application and limit early application requirements; it drew strong support from housing and business groups, with the American Planning Association and League of California Cities seeking more flexibility and input. AB 610 would require local governments to disclose housing constraints in their housing elements and limit new constraints after certification for three years unless disclosed; supporters said it would improve transparency and certainty, while opponents warned it could chill legitimate local policy choices and inclusionary housing requirements. Both AB 610 and AB 698, which would require analysis of the housing and property tax impacts of proposed transfer taxes, were moved out of committee on 7-0 votes after discussion and amendments. The committee also heard AB 1112, which would repeal an outdated Riverside County property tax provision affecting Rancho Mirage; the city argued it was the only qualifying no-low property tax city not receiving the standard minimum and sought equal treatment. After quorum was established, the bill was passed 6-0 with amendments and sent to Appropriations. AB 1021, heard later, would make it easier for school districts and other local education agencies to build employee housing, with the author citing teacher recruitment and retention problems and support from education stakeholders. Throughout the hearing, members and witnesses repeatedly emphasized the need to balance housing production, local fiscal tools, and infrastructure needs, and several authors accepted committee amendments and committed to continued negotiations with opponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you're interested in reviewing the written testimony, please go to our website.
• Due to the large amount of testimony we received, the committee will be taking time to review the testimony
• I think I need to um adjourn. will be taking time to review the will be taking time to review the testimony

Summary: The committee opened with the 10:54 agenda and took up SB 2656, a short-form bill relating to taxation. The chair explained the intent was to insert the provisions of proposed SD1, then recommit the bill to the Committee on Ways and Means so the process could start over and a full hearing could be held later. The committee adopted the chair’s recommendation to pass SB 2656 proposed SD1 with amendments and recommit it, with aye votes from the chair, vice chair, and several senators, and reservations from Senators Elefante, Wai, and Favlla; Senators Kidani and McKim were excused. For the remaining three agendas on that meeting block, no oral testimony was taken. The chair said there was a large volume of written testimony, so the committee would review it and defer decision-making to a later date on all three measures. The meeting then moved through the 10:55, 10:56, and 10:57 agendas. On the 10:55 agenda, the committee said it would defer decision-making to Monday, March 2, except for SB 334, which would be deferred and then reposted as proposed SD2 for a full hearing, with testimony to be submitted on the proposed SD2 rather than the current version. On the 10:56 and 10:57 agendas, the committee deferred decision-making to Tuesday, March 3, at 10:15 a.m. in conference room 211, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So these are a couple of, through a charter review that we had in the town of Bridgewater, we needed
• But Bridgewater created a recall provision in the last charter review, and this is the language that
• This was put together by a charter review committee, sent to the council for approval of their recommendations
• That particular point was brought up when we took this up from the Charter Review Committee.
• That particular point was brought up when we decided, when we took this up from the Charter Review Committee

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Election Laws

Summary: The House Committee on Election Laws, chaired by Dan Hunt and co-chaired by Senator Keenan, held a hearing on 27 bills with testimony limited to three minutes per speaker. The main policy theme was expanding youth participation in elections. Senator O'Connor testified in support of Senate Bill 526 and House Bill 854, which would allow 17-year-olds to vote in a primary if they turn 18 before the general election. Lawan Allen of Vote 16 USA also supported bills to lower the voting age, arguing that youth voting becomes habitual, can increase turnout more broadly, and is already in place in several cities and states. Robin Chen, the lead petitioner for S. 508 and H. 814, gave extended testimony in favor of children's right to vote, saying children are affected by government decisions and should have a voice. Representative Sousa raised concerns about misinformation and the vulnerability of younger voters, but Chen responded that misinformation affects adults too and pointed to historical civil rights activism by children. Several local election-law measures were also discussed. Cynthia Hogan, Brockton’s elections director, supported a bill requiring candidates for local office to have lived in the city for a year, saying people have sometimes used business addresses or other questionable claims of residency to run for office. Representative Suzy testified in favor of H. 872, a Pembroke home-rule petition to reduce the signature threshold for a recall petition from 20% to 10% of registered voters, describing the change as a response to low-turnout local elections and not aimed at any current official. Representative Gallagher supported two Bridgewater home-rule petitions: one establishing a recall process for elected officials and another creating term limits for town councilors, both of which had been approved by the town council and would still require voter ratification in Bridgewater if adopted by the legislature. The hearing concluded without any bill votes or committee actions beyond accepting testimony. The chair noted that written testimony would continue to be accepted until action is taken on the bills, and the committee adjourned after no further witnesses came forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, one question after reviewing the member said that was adopted in Reverend Fiss in Senate committee
• So I guess my question to you guys at the table, and I know you did review the timeline as far as how
• criteria in the statute that defines what can be a capital A project and what qualifies through the review
• the bill because we don't think they qualify based on that definition, but I think maybe we should review
• I think we received 1,900 and some odd requests last year, and part of our requirements are to review

Bills: SB406

Committee: House Ways & Means

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> Representative Long, to the body, that bill is being reviewed. >> Further point of parliamentary
• Long, to the body, that bill<00:14:13.840><c> is</c><00:14:14.080><c> being</c><00:14:14.640><c> reviewed
• </c> bill is being reviewed. bill is being reviewed.
• you are going to allow a vote before the end of session on Senate File 4067. >> The bill is being reviewed

Transcript Highlights:

• Expands the Health Department's review of correctional health services by including a biennial study
• Print number 360 by Senator Rivera expands the Health Department's review of correctional health services
• Requires that the Medicaid Inspector General comply with standards relating to the audit and review of
• Requires that Medicaid Inspector General to comply with standards relating to the audit and review of
• medical assistance programs. to comply with standards relating to the audit and review of medical assistance

Committee: Senate Finance

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee, chaired for the day by Senator John Liu, took up a long agenda of bills covering labor and benefits, corrections, health, taxation, government transparency, and public services. Early measures included increasing short-term disability benefits, adjusting a poverty-level-related earned income disregard, expanding correctional health staffing review, and authorizing the Inspector General to investigate sexual assault complaints in correctional facilities; each of these advanced to the floor. The committee also advanced bills on ovarian cancer screening access, retirement system membership changes, a trail stewardship program, live agency representative access, FOIL/open meetings fee awards, a Harriman campus development plan, court data reporting, educator conventions, park water testing, an energy storage tax abatement, a Native American Affairs office, adult changing tables in public facilities, Medicaid Inspector General audit standards, remote training certification for agency personnel, newborn Gaucher disease testing, electronic self-exclusion requests for gambling, and child daycare inspections and opioid antagonist requirements. Several bills drew discussion. The prescription drug transparency bill (Print 488A) prompted questions about possible overlap with federal Hatch-Waxman/FTC oversight and whether a New York notice requirement could slow generic-drug settlements; sponsors and staff said it was intended as a supplemental transparency measure for consumers. The court reporting bill (Print 1849A) raised concerns about mandates on local governments, but supporters said it mainly required OCA to compile data in one format. The Medicaid local-share phaseout bill (Print 5519) generated the most debate, with supporters arguing it would provide major property tax relief and should be addressed in the budget, while opponents emphasized the need to curb Medicaid fraud, waste, and abuse first. Two major fiscal oversight proposals were defeated. Print 8661, which would have required the Comptroller to hire an independent private auditing firm to review state-funded programs for fraud and abuse, was opposed despite support from some members who argued outside auditing was overdue; it failed by one vote. Print 5519 was also ultimately defeated after a recount confirmed it lacked the required majority of the full 22-member committee. Most other bills were approved and sent either to the floor or, in the case of the drug transparency bill, to the Rules Committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• And your IEP notification and a parent is able to review.
• So this is that they may have the ability to review records at least five days prior to, however.
• What protections are in place for the school district if you can't get a parent in the door to review
• Yeah, so it doesn't say that they shall review the documents.
• SB 1734 creates guardrails for the use of AI in schools, requires teachers to review what AI produces

Bills: SB710 , SB843 , SB1317 , SB1338 , SB1410 , SB1477 , SB1489 , SB1593 , SB1614 , SB1630 , SB1632 , SB1633 , SB1670 , SB1726 , SB1734 , SB1725 , SB1735 , SB1894 , SB1975 , SB346 , SB2045

Committee: House Education Oversight

Summary: The committee heard and advanced a long series of education-related bills, including measures on school board nepotism rules (SB 843), preserving the Ag in the Classroom program in statute (SB 1410), shifting oversight of technology centers to the State Board of Career and Technology Education (SB 1735), teacher certification and hiring transparency (SB 346), AP exam access (SB 1975), in-state tuition alignment with federal law after a consent judgment (SB 1633), teacher professional development caps (SB 1894), portability of career teacher status between districts (SB 1317), recess requirements and discipline limits (SB 2045), expanding the Teach Forward Program (SB 710), limiting concurrent enrollment to students 21 and under (SB 1477), special education training and parent-record review rights (SB 1489), a teacher induction program for new and emergency-certified teachers (SB 1614), graduate-level teacher training requirements (SB 1726), career assessment test selection and credit transfer authority (SB 1632), OSU-Tulsa governance changes (SB 1593), virtual days for certain high school students not taking the ACT (SB 1630), R&D rebate modernization (SB 1670), AI guardrails in schools (SB 1734), and security fees for student organizations that cannot be based on viewpoint or content (SB 1725). Several bills drew brief questions, especially SB 1633, SB 1489, SB 1477, SB 1614, SB 1726, and SB 1725, but no substantive opposition was recorded beyond a few nay votes on some measures. Most bills were moved by due pass motions and approved by voice or roll-call votes, often unanimously or near-unanimously. Notable recorded opposition included SB 1633 and SB 1725, each passing with a few nays, and SB 1726 passing 7-2. SB 1338 was laid over until Wednesday. The meeting concluded with notice of another committee meeting scheduled for Wednesday at 9 a.m., and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• General Court, the petition proposed to grant the judicial branch new and unprecedented authority to review
• powers of the courts, and so far as it grants the judicial branch new and unprecedented authority to review
• note of, that while the Attorney General did certify these for the ballot, we all know now that her review
• recently to many members of the committee and many members of the Senate, quite frankly, were not reviewed
• But again, it should be noted: the Attorney General's review, when it comes to moving ballot initiatives

Summary: The Senate opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and several ceremonial items, including introductions of championship Tri-County High School football and boys’ cross-country teams and adoption of a resolution honoring Auburn and the Robert and Esther Goddard Centennial Committee for the 100th anniversary of the first liquid-fueled rocket launch. The chamber then gave final passage to several local bills, including measures authorizing payment by the City of Revere, adjusting Wellesley’s senior property tax deferral income threshold, amending the Hopedinton/Hopkinton town charter regarding library trustees, and other local matters, all of which were passed to be enacted and sent to the Governor. The Senate also suspended Joint Rule 12 to refer House petitions to committees and took up several local bills from the Orders of the Day. These included bills enhancing the powers of the Cotuit Fire District’s Board of Water Commissioners, authorizing the Cotuit Fire District to raise money for the Historical Society of Santuit and Cotuit, further regulating the Salem licensing board, and validating the results of Bourne’s May 20, 2025 annual election. Each was advanced by unanimous consent, read a third time, and passed to be engrossed. A major portion of the session focused on two orders from Senator Friedman requesting advisory opinions from the Supreme Judicial Court on initiative petitions. One concerned a public records proposal that would extend public records law to the General Court and Governor’s office; the other concerned a legislative stipends proposal that would alter internal legislative procedures and compensation rules. Senator Feeney argued the requests were needed to clarify constitutional issues before the Legislature acts on the initiatives, and both orders were adopted. The Senate also received a Ways and Means report on Senate Bill 2720, a bill banning the retail sale of dogs, cats, rabbits, and pet sharks, with a new draft, Senate No. 3014, recommended. The chamber adopted an order placing the bill on the Orders of the Day for second reading on March 19, 2026, with amendments in order, and then adopted a separate order to adjourn until Monday at 11 a.m., dispensing with the printing of a calendar.