Transcript Highlights:

• So we worked very closely with the finance team and FIELD to try to evaluate the financial plan and get
• These are the projects that based on our conversations either with the district or internally evaluating
• We're evaluating our options.
• Based on some of the actions taken under the out-of-cycle items, we'll evaluate these and may have to
• Staff from start the process of evaluating the extent of the problem and to try and look at what the

Transcript Highlights:

• We know how to evaluate complex medical histories in medications we don't just treat in fixed.
• And we need doctors who can evaluate our patients health.
• But when that program is not working, we must evaluate. But the problem is and fix it.
• And it was mentioned that Dennis evaluate and treat the entire patient.
• So those patients would be full of audit, formal, formal evaluation.

Transcript Highlights:

• or perhaps just evaluate as it relates to goals and outcomes.
• And as I said earlier, there will be some evaluation done of those efforts over the next 3 years.
• Um, we, we started this work as far as sort of evaluation last year.
• And because of that, we're not always able to make good decisions or evaluate programs.
• Sustainability plans and program evaluation measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• as well as evaluating what recruitment is working, what retention strategies are working, what's working
• The most immediate of those responsibilities is any hazard to workers, and we evaluate each situation
• However, we recommend that the legislature, when evaluating this proposal, focus on how any findings
• So our recommendation for evaluating this proposal is to have the department identify specific ways in
• We are doing active evaluations.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• how are the funds monitored throughout the individual districts per pupil, because I don't see it competing
• how are the funds monitored throughout the individual districts per pupil, because I don't see it competing
• how are the funds monitored throughout the individual districts per pupil, because I don't see it competing
• <01:15:14.040> for<01:15:14.239> all<01:15:14.360> the stresses of uh competing
• for all the stresses of uh competing for all the scholarships<01:15:15.280> uh<01:15:15.400><

Bills: HF984, HF921, HF922

Keywords: education funding, nonpublic schools, counseling services, guidance services, transportation for students, HF921, tax increment financing, TIF, excess tax increment, school district aid, levy adjustment, property tax levy, education finance, Minnesota education aid, decertification, local government finance, school funding formula, state aid reduction, referendum equalization aid, debt service equalization

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and one last component is evaluation.
• And so, we need a hypothesis, a baseline, and a rigorous evaluation, process measures, outcome measures
• Um, and one last component is evaluation.
• Um, and one last component is evaluation.
• There's some you know evaluation There's some you know evaluation components<00:45:42.200> and

Bills: HB2246, HB2119, HB1929, HB1953, HB1572, HB2549, HB2594, HB2551, HB2595, HB2548, HB2459, HB1931, HB1604, HB1616, HB1736, HB2233, HB2241, HB1891, HB1803, HB2567, HB2534, HB2399, HB2172, HB1595, HB1811, HB2168, HB1780, HB1781, HB1785, HB2122, HB2012, HB2398, HB1779, HB2296, HB1894, HB1925, HB2019, HB1896, HB2294, HB2298, HB2300, HB2344, HB2345, HB2391, HB2037, HB2201, HB1941, HB1635, HB1943, HB2325, HB1926, HB2490, HB1710, HB2545, HB1976, HB2173, HB1804, HB1563, HB2015, HB1619, HB2475, HB1889, HB2367, HB2187, HB1765, HB1452, HB2231, HB1700, HB1705, HB1626, HB1897, HB1642, HB1523, HB2593, HB815, HB1655, HB1596, HB1732, HB1842, HB2476, HB2478, HB2022, HB1588, HB2575, HB1163, HB2153, HB772, HB1519, HB2050, HB2309, HB2147, HB2329, HB2274, HB2280, HB2547, HB2275, HB2452, HB2306, HB2148, HB2088, HB1764, HB2438, HB2117, HB1860, HB2604, HB2118, HB2017, HB2155, HB1832, HB2216, HB1601, HB1934, HB2297, HB2397, HB1893, HB2533, HB1890, HB2454, HB2004, HB2427, HB2207, HB1810, HB1840, HB1644, HB1645, HB1946, HB1648, HB2324, HB2323, HB1509, HB1514, HB1515, HB2164, HB2165, HB2283, HB1691, HB2386, HB2423, HB2121, HB1984, HB1593, HB1671, HB2619, HB1481, HB2314, HB2319, HB1643, HB2558, HB1864, HB1898, HB2214, HB2167, HB2488, HB2009, HB2007, HB322, HB1964, HB2218, HB2616, HB1535, HB1574, HB1977, HB2054, HB2046, HB146, HB2094, HB2181, HB2250, HB2515, HB2444, HB2385, HB1740, HB1724, HB1733, HB1799, HB1725, HB2049, HB2161, HB1970, HB2519, HB1790, HB2416, HB1873, HB2001, HB2151, HB1603, HB1880, HB1753, HB2198, HB1511, HB1991, HB2546, HB1615, HB1939, HB2140, HB2429, HB1870, HB1850, HB1782, HB2137

Keywords: agriculture, federal grants, Hawaii, grant administration, revolving fund, department of agriculture and biosecurity, grant compliance, financial support, coffee, pest control, subsidy program, coffee berry borer, coffee leaf rust, economy, biosecurity, invasive species, Molokai, advisory board, quarantine, environmental protection

Bills: HB2246, HB2119, HB1929, HB1953, HB1572, HB2549, HB2594, HB2551, HB2595, HB2548, HB2459, HB1931, HB1604, HB1616, HB1736, HB2233, HB2241, HB1891, HB1803, HB2567, HB2534, HB2399, HB2172, HB1595, HB1811, HB2168, HB1780, HB1781, HB1785, HB2122, HB2012, HB2398, HB1779, HB2296, HB1894, HB1925, HB2019, HB1896, HB2294, HB2298, HB2300, HB2344, HB2345, HB2391, HB2037, HB2201, HB1941, HB1635, HB1943, HB2325, HB1926, HB2490, HB1710, HB2545, HB1976, HB2173, HB1804, HB1563, HB2015, HB1619, HB2475, HB1889, HB2367, HB2187, HB1765, HB1452, HB2231, HB1700, HB1705, HB1626, HB1897, HB1642, HB1523, HB2593, HB815, HB1655, HB1596, HB1732, HB1842, HB2476, HB2478, HB2022, HB1588, HB2575, HB1163, HB2153, HB772, HB1519, HB2050, HB2309, HB2147, HB2329, HB2274, HB2280, HB2547, HB2275, HB2452, HB2306, HB2148, HB2088, HB1764, HB2438, HB2117, HB1860, HB2604, HB2118, HB2017, HB2155, HB1832, HB2216, HB1601, HB1934, HB2297, HB2397, HB1893, HB2533, HB1890, HB2454, HB2004, HB2427, HB2207, HB1810, HB1840, HB1644, HB1645, HB1946, HB1648, HB2324, HB2323, HB1509, HB1514, HB1515, HB2164, HB2165, HB2283, HB1691, HB2386, HB2423, HB2121, HB1984, HB1593, HB1671, HB2619, HB1481, HB2314, HB2319, HB1643, HB2558, HB1864, HB1898, HB2214, HB2167, HB2488, HB2009, HB2007, HB322, HB1964, HB2218, HB2616, HB1535, HB1574, HB1977, HB2054, HB2046, HB146, HB2094, HB2181, HB2250, HB2515, HB2444, HB2385, HB1740, HB1724, HB1733, HB1799, HB1725, HB2049, HB2161, HB1970, HB2519, HB1790, HB2416, HB1873, HB2001, HB2151, HB1603, HB1880, HB1753, HB2198, HB1511, HB1991, HB2546, HB1615, HB1939, HB2140, HB2429, HB1870, HB1850, HB1782, HB2137

Keywords: agriculture, federal grants, Hawaii, grant administration, revolving fund, department of agriculture and biosecurity, grant compliance, financial support, coffee, pest control, subsidy program, coffee berry borer, coffee leaf rust, economy, biosecurity, invasive species, Molokai, advisory board, quarantine, environmental protection

Transcript Highlights:

• The state also funded an evaluation of this program in the 2022-23 budget act, but this evaluation has
• This evaluation has not yet begun.
• Do we have a good estimate about when we're going to see a program evaluation on outcomes?
• My concern is that this has not gone through the, I guess, the typical IT evaluation.
• Is there any thoughts about maybe trying to go through the evaluative process?

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held a hearing focused on California Community College budget proposals. Chair Alvarez opened by emphasizing the system’s role in access, transfer, workforce training, and serving more than 2 million students, while also noting persistent challenges in enrollment, persistence, transfer, and graduation. Public commenters and system representatives broadly supported COLA, enrollment growth funding, deferred maintenance, student support block grants, and additional flexibility for districts facing uncertainty. The first major panel covered the student-centered funding formula, COLA, and enrollment growth. The Department of Finance said the Governor proposes a 2.43% COLA ($230.4 million) and 0.5% enrollment growth funding ($30.4 million). The LAO said the COLA was reasonable and recommended funding at least the proposed growth amount, citing uneven enrollment recovery and regional differences. The Chancellor’s Office supported both proposals and asked for additional changes, including using the greater of current-year or three-year average for apportionments and lifting the 10% local enrollment cap, arguing these would better fund growing districts. Members questioned how the formula works, whether SCFF is improving outcomes, and how much additional funding would be needed under different growth scenarios. The committee then reviewed categorical program COLAs, Rising Scholars, career education proposals, IT proposals, and student housing. The Governor proposed a 2.43% COLA for selected categorical programs ($31.9 million). For Rising Scholars, the Governor proposed $30 million ongoing and removal of the cap on participating colleges; the LAO urged waiting for outcome data before doubling funding, while the Chancellor’s Office said the program is serving more students and supports equity for justice-impacted students. On career education, the Governor proposed $50 million for credit for prior learning and $50 million for a career passport; the LAO supported more reporting on credit for prior learning but recommended rejecting the career passport as too undefined, while the Chancellor’s Office supported both. On technology, the Governor proposed $162.5 million for a common cloud data platform and $168 million for a common ERP system; the LAO said both were premature or lacked sufficient planning and recommended rejection, while the Chancellor’s Office argued they would improve real-time data, security, and systemwide efficiency. The committee also heard an update on student housing: the administration said the 2024 shift to a lease-revenue bond model remains in progress for 13 approved projects, with 11 still active, and members asked about withdrawn projects and possible use of any returned funds. No votes were taken, and several items were held open for further discussion and May Revision updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• The assessed value of a sewer plant gets re-evaluated, and at this point in time the evaluation went
• The assessed value of a sewer plant gets re-evaluated, and at this point in time the evaluation went
• The assessed value of a sewer plant gets re-evaluated.
• >> and determine what it new evaluation is.
• >> and determine what it new evaluation is.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In this evaluation, we really researched two main questions.
• In this evaluation, we really researched two main questions.
• I will say that we have continued across audits and evaluations to find issues with documentation of
• to find issues with and evaluations to find issues with documentation<00:35:34.599> of<00:35:
• <01:28:20.239> on in 20203 about doing evaluations on in 20203 about doing evaluations on

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee held its first meeting on February 10, 2025, with member and staff introductions and opening remarks from Chair Kristin Robbins about the committee’s bipartisan mission to address state fraud and improve oversight of executive branch spending. Robbins said the committee would focus on both legislation and informational oversight hearings, likely in coordination with standing policy committees, and emphasized concerns about reported fraud in state government and the need to prevent waste before it occurs. Members from both parties generally expressed support for the committee’s work and interest in learning more about the issues. The sole agenda item was a presentation from the Legislative Auditor on the 2023 report, “Oversight of State-Funded Grants to Nonprofit Organizations.” Legislative Auditor Judy Randall and Deputy Legislative Auditor Jodi Munson Rodriguez explained that the report reviewed how comprehensive Minnesota’s grants management policies are and how well agencies follow them. They said the policies cover the grant lifecycle but often lack detail, and the office found widespread noncompliance in recent years. The presentation included examples such as limited standards for progress reports, flexible monitoring requirements, and no required timeline for closeout reviews. The auditors also noted that state agencies spent an average of about $514 million annually on nonprofit grants from fiscal years 2018 through 2022, with about 2,400 nonprofit organizations receiving grants. The auditors said several factors contribute to compliance problems, including inconsistent funding for grants management, limited training, and uneven use of electronic grants systems. They also noted that statutes gave little authority to enforce compliance. Since the report was released, the Department of Administration has taken some steps, including changes to pre-award financial review policies and a timeline for closeout reviews, but the auditors said other recommendations remain only partially implemented. No votes were taken and no bills were acted on at this meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• With the amendments, this bill will require regulations and consultation with OCA to be re-evaluated
• The findings of the evaluation will be reported as required under existing law at a public meeting on
• And to evaluate how affordable rates are, under this bill, the departments will consult with OCA and
• We'll get the data, and I think it'll serve as a platform for evaluation moving forward.
• As a psychiatrist, I know that a brief crisis evaluation often cannot determine whether someone who is

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , which is outlined before implementation and evaluation plan.
• The program evaluation, yes, we are working on program evaluation in close collaboration with LFC and
• And to be honest with you, the Kids Count evaluation, that's only 2 of the 16 measures, right?
• First, we have a nationally recognized evaluations team.
• I'm one of your program evaluators at the LFC.

Transcript Highlights:

• Lastly, the Sunset staff completed their evaluation of the Texas Lottery Commission as directed at the
• Lastly, the Sunset staff completed their evaluation of the Texas Lottery Commission as directed at the
• We have an agenda item available if members want to discuss that evaluation.
• During the September meeting of the Sunset Commission, we adopted a motion directing Sunset staff to evaluate
• Members, we received this evaluation January the 6th.

Keywords: Sunset Advisory Commission, Texas Ethics Commission, recommendations, Angelina River Authority, Natchez Valley Authority, public testimony, legislative session

Summary: The meeting of the Sunset Advisory Commission served as a concluding assembly for the current biennium, where various agencies were reviewed. Notably, the Commission focused on staff recommendations and modifications regarding the Angelina and Natchez River Authority, Lower Natchez Valley Authority, and Texas Ethics Commission. After discussing various modifications, the members voted unanimously on multiple recommendations aimed at improving operational efficiency and accountability within these agencies. The Chair emphasized the collaborative effort of the Commission members and staff, acknowledging their hard work throughout the biennium.

Transcript Highlights:

• Education exposes students to ideas, sometimes competing ideas, so they can examine evidence, ask questions
• 01.600> me, to ideas, sometimes compel, excuse me, to ideas, sometimes compel, excuse me, competing
• 03.120> so<00:26:03.360> they<00:26:03.600> can<00:26:03.760> examine competing
• ideas, so they can examine competing ideas, so they can examine evidence,<00:26:04.880> ask<00
• pedagogical teaching, examples of impermissible teaching, and resources that align curriculum with core competencies

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• announcement from the U set off kind of a scramble among school districts with few other options, all competing
• Um, in a year when I know there are many competing financial pressures and precedents for all of you,
• Um, in a year when I know there are many competing financial pressures and precedents for all of you,
• districts to fund programs of competing districts to fund programs of competing schools.<01:09:50.239
• These differences impact the ability to compete with neighboring districts for students and employees

Bills: HF3790, HF3654, HF3371, HF3470, HF1099

Keywords: education finance, lease levy authority, graduation ceremonies, school districts, Minnesota Statutes, local revenue, funding increase, education, state appropriation, local control, HF3371, local optional revenue, school finance, general education aid, school district funding, referendum revenue, referendum market value, equalization aid, state aid, property tax levy

Transcript Highlights:

• very close to Evansville, Indiana,<01:16:15.440> who<01:16:15.679> we<01:16:15.920> compete
• <01:16:16.239> with<01:16:17.120> uh<01:16:17.280> quite Indiana, who we compete
• And so we want to make sure that this is handled in a jurisdiction that is competent to handle federal
• <01:32:28.080> is handled in a jurisdiction that is handled in a jurisdiction that is competent
• competent to handle federal law. competent to handle federal law.

Keywords: This version of the House chambers was retrieved from back up and uploaded. The original live stream contained issues where audio and video got out of sync., 958, all

Summary: The House convened with an invocation and pledge, established a quorum, approved the prior journal, and received committee reports on several bills. Reported measures included House Bills 1 and 2 from Appropriations and Revenue, along with bills on animal control officers, emergency services revenue, postsecondary education, proactive postsecondary admission, vehicle lights, motor vehicle operation, motor vehicle dealers, and machine gun conversion devices. The chamber also took up Senate Bills 52 and 124 for concurrence, and House Bill 1 was moved from rules to the orders of the day for immediate action. The House then considered House Bill 568, which would regulate public adjusters by prohibiting new licenses, allowing renewals for current licensees, imposing conflict-of-interest and contract requirements, capping fees at 5%, and barring adjusters from negotiating claims. Supporters described it as a consumer-protection measure responding to complaints and investigations, especially after recent storm-related exploitation. The bill passed overwhelmingly, 95-1. The House next debated House Bill 1, which would opt Kentucky into the federal education freedom tax credit program and authorize the Secretary of State to administer the state’s participation without using state general funds. Supporters argued it would bring federal scholarship dollars into Kentucky for K-12 students, including public school students, and could generate significant private donations for scholarship-granting organizations. Opponents raised concerns about shifting resources away from public education, the speed of the process, and a proposed waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity. A motion to table the bill failed by a wide margin, and members continued debating the bill and its implications for public schools and state sovereignty.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's really what this bill is all about: not having to compete with other programs or even the
• And that's really what this bill is all about: not having to compete with other programs or even the
• And that's really what this bill is all about: not having to compete with other programs or even the
• And that's really what this bill is all about: not having to compete with other programs or even the
• Not having to compete with other programs or even the general fund.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee took up several school building aid bills. HB 295, which would make school building aid program funds non-lapsing, drew debate over whether the program is effective and whether funds should be allowed to carry forward. Supporters argued the program is underfunded and that even small leftover amounts should remain available for building aid; opponents said non-lapsing funds limit future budget flexibility and that the program creates winners and losers. The committee voted 4-3 to recommend HB 295 inexpedient to legislate (ITL). The committee then considered HB 366, which would increase school building aid for eligible projects and include retroactive funding for projects completed in the past. The motion to ITL was supported on the grounds that retroactive payments would be unfair to districts still waiting in line and that the legislature should focus on future projects. Supporters of the bill said the increase was modest and that districts that built during a prior moratorium on aid were left with long-term fiscal burdens. The committee again voted 4-3 to recommend ITL. The discussion also broadened into special education funding and a retained bill, HB 742, concerning catastrophic special education aid and the source of funding. Members debated whether the education trust fund should cover the aid and whether the committee should act now or wait for a separate commission studying special education costs. Several members emphasized that special education costs are rising, that more data is needed on student identification and funding formulas, and that the commission’s report may provide better guidance. The chair said the subcommittee’s recommendations would go to the full committee, and the next meeting was expected to be rescheduled from November 4 to later that week because of election-related conflicts.

Transcript Highlights:

• With the MH1 evaluations as necessary.
• appointed as child custody evaluators. appointed as child custody evaluators.
• <00:55:44.800> is timely access to qualified evaluators is timely access to qualified evaluators
• Allowing them to serve as evaluators Allowing them to serve as evaluators reflects<00:55:58.160>
• <01:26:48.680> culpability, when courts evaluate culpability, when courts evaluate culpability

Bills: SB709, SB2089, SB2090, SB2108, SB2211, SB2250, SB2325, SB2803, SB2866, SB3245

Keywords: mental health, crisis intervention, assisted community treatment, treatment orders, law enforcement training, public safety, court-ordered treatment, Medicaid, healthcare access, unlicensed professionals, supervised services, workforce development, mental health equity, child custody, evaluations, licensed counselors, family court, juvenile justice, waiver of jurisdiction, transfer to adult court

Summary: The committee heard SB 709 SD2, which would require the Department of Health to respond to reports involving persons with severe mental illness, assess eligibility for assisted community treatment, and coordinate treatment when appropriate. Testimony from the Department of Human Services and the Department of Health supported the measure, with DOH saying it generally supported the bill but had comments on one section it viewed as unnecessary. The Department of Law Enforcement later explained that the bill would shift certification and standards for crisis intervention officer training from DOH to DLE, while still involving DOH in the training process. Opposition came from the Hawaii Disability Rights Center and an individual testifier, both of whom argued the bill expands state authority over people with mental illness and could worsen forced treatment practices. The Disability Rights Center also raised procedural concerns, saying the bill was effectively moved from a prior administration measure that had not been heard this session, and questioned whether the bill’s changes to assisted community treatment, blood tests, urinalysis, and living arrangements went beyond current law. The individual testifier argued the bill would further entrench harmful psychiatric drugging and urged the committee to defer it. Committee members questioned the administration about the bill’s process, the role of the Attorney General in treatment-over-objection proceedings, and the practical effects of moving CIT certification to DLE. The Attorney General’s office said the bill was intended to fill a gap by allowing it to assist with treatment proceedings, while public defenders would continue to represent respondents and due process protections would remain in place. DLE and DOH said the change would better align certification with law enforcement training needs, improve speed in crisis response, and still keep DOH involved; members also discussed whether WAM counted as a hearing and whether the bill should more explicitly preserve DOH’s role. No vote or final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, so, you know, we'll be definitely trying to evaluate the safety of it, I guess, in regards to this
• <00:18:09.679> how<00:18:09.919> many<00:18:10.080> students will be evaluating
• how many students will be evaluating how many students they're<00:18:10.720> picking<00:18:10.960
• trying to evaluate the safety of<00:18:56.880> it,<00:18:57.120> I<00:18:57.360> guess
• Um, is this currently some practice that's being done right now as you evaluate and design the routes

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Education heard three resolutions. STR 53 SD1 sought to have the Legislative Reference Bureau work with the Hawaii State Public Library System to identify rural and underserved communities needing better telecommunications access so residents can participate in the legislative process. Testimony from the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities supported the measure, emphasizing that many advocates cannot always travel to the Capitol and need better access. STR 117 SD1 urged the Department of Education to work with the Department of Transportation Safe Routes to School Advisory Committee and the County of Hawaii to inventory bus stops on Hawaii Island used by students and develop safety improvements; DOE described an upcoming live route audit, noted the large number of routes and stops on the Big Island, and said some stops are on private roads. The Department of Transportation, Hawaii County Council, the mayor’s office, and others supported the measure, and members discussed whether the effort could eventually expand statewide. STR 134 asked the Department of Education to provide a detailed report on the true cost of producing school meals to improve transparency and avoid unnecessary price increases. DOE said it already tracks food, labor, benefits, supplies, equipment, and other costs to calculate per-meal costs, but does not currently include transportation costs in the same way; it stated its breakfast cost was $5.80 and lunch cost was $8.66. Support testimony came from the Hawaii Public Health Institute, Hawaii Appleseed, the Hawaii Children’s Action Network, the Hawaii Hunger Action Network, and others, who said clearer cost information is especially important amid funding uncertainty. In decision making, the committee amended and passed STR 53 SD1, reverting it to the original draft by replacing the Legislative Reference Bureau with the Controller and adding coordination with the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development and the Hawaii Broadband and Digital Equity Office, while removing references tied to the LRB and the public access room outreach clause. The committee also amended and passed STR 117 SD1, shifting the lead role to the Safe Routes to School Advisory Committee and adding a request for the County of Hawaii to consider funding the effort. STR 134 was passed unamended. Representative Souza was excused for the votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• That was a Perthro appropriation, so it'll be in line for an evaluation by PED. They're currently.
• Drafting the evaluation plan, I believe, for attendance. That's one area.
• And that's why it elevated the concept of our per grow evaluation model that we're currently building
• in collaboration with PED, particularly using what we already have in the state, to really evaluate.
• Um, now, if we're talking about efficiency in government, let's evaluate what we're doing, seeing if