Transcript Highlights:

• and all those other restrictions, and it becomes a loophole then, right?
• restrictions restrictions anymore anymore anymore well<00:15:04.199><c> D</c><00:15:04.880><c> could
• </c> well D could set their own restrictions well D could set their own restrictions on<00:15:06.440>
• </c><00:16:13.319><c> for</c> hhfdc remove the restrictions for hhfdc remove the restrictions for affordability
• </c><01:21:06.000><c> units</c> have over 1,000 deed restricted units have over 1,000 deed restricted

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint Housing and Public Safety/Water and Land hearing first took up HB 1096, which would repeal statutory tenant-selection preferences for disabled veterans and spouses of deceased veterans in state low-income housing. HPHA testified in support, saying the change was a housekeeping measure because the same preferences already exist in administrative rules and could be adjusted later to align with other local preferences, while also noting the federal VASH program provides stronger veteran housing support. Several members questioned why the preference should be removed at all, emphasizing that veterans have long been underserved and asking for a stronger justification; the committees ultimately deferred HB 1096. The later Housing/Hawaiian Affairs agenda heard HB 606 HD1, a measure to extend Act 279 funding and related exemptions for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. Supporters argued the bill would give DHHL more time to use the $600 million appropriation to acquire land, work with developers, and address a wait list of about 29,000 applicants, while also helping restore Hawaiian communities and reduce the Hawaiian diaspora. Opponents focused on accountability and oversight, saying DHHL needs clearer plans, measurable goals, and stronger safeguards before receiving more money, and warning that prior spending and strategic-plan changes had reduced the number of applicants served. The committee also heard testimony that the bill would help DHHL fulfill long-standing obligations to Native Hawaiians and that the housing need affects the broader state, not only Hawaiian Home Lands beneficiaries.

Transcript Highlights:

• With restrictions, is that correct?
• It doesn't restrict that.
• I'm not seeing a Time restriction in the bill.
• Restricted. So is one scenario with your language restricting a freedom versus another scenario?
• We talked about had a one-mile restriction.

Bills: SB1519, SB1775, SB1900, SB1948, SB2080, SB1226, SB1456, SB1462, SB1463, SB1980, SB1479, SB1608, SB1923

Keywords: municipal zoning, home-based businesses, no-impact businesses, local government, regulation, short-term rentals, municipal ordinance, municipal court, court of record, court not of record, city penalties, fine limits, penalty cap, ordinance enforcement, state statute, traffic offenses, speeding, parking, DUI, DWI

Transcript Highlights:

• So we would prefer to see that moved out of restrictive housing law because this restrictive housing
• </c><00:29:12.240><c> housing</c> restrict the use of restrictive housing restrict the use of restrictive
• </c> meaningfully ensure less restrictive meaningfully ensure less restrictive housing,<00:29:45.760>
• </c> person has been held in restrictive person has been held in restrictive housing.<00:30:40.000><c
• </c><00:30:57.200><c> With</c> reducing restrictive housing. With reducing restrictive housing.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The working group convened with all members present, approved the minutes from its October 16, 2025 meeting and its October 28, 2025 Halawa Correctional Facility site visit by unanimous consent, and received no public testimony on the agenda or minutes. The chair then reviewed the statutory timeline under Act 292/SB 104, noting the group continues until January 8, 2027, and discussed required reporting dates and the need to develop a work plan for the remaining meetings. The chair also said the October 16 DCR presentation would be treated as satisfying the group’s interim-report purpose, though the legal reporting obligations to the Legislature and oversight commission still needed to be sorted out. The main discussion focused on DCR’s proposed amendments to Act 292 and the department’s interim report. Director Johnson said the department’s October 16 presentation included recommended statutory amendments because the law, as written, could not be fully complied with; the proposals were described as section-by-section changes intended to address implementation problems. Members discussed several specific issues, including transfer language for higher levels of care, the 2010 MOA with the Department of Health, and replacing “physician” with “clinician” to reflect staffing realities. DCR explained that the change would allow licensed clinicians, including APRNs and doctors of osteopathy, to make decisions when physicians are not on duty, and that the MOA is being updated so transfers can occur from any DCR facility to the state hospital. An OHA staff member gave a detailed critique of the proposed amendments, saying they would weaken Act 292’s intent by reducing procedural protections, expanding exceptions, and relying on aspirational language such as “strive” and “if practicable.” OHA also raised concerns about the lack of baseline data on restrictive housing use and said the department’s report showed serious operational problems, including overcrowded and outdated facilities, limited space for private medical or mental health exams, and the use of suicide/safety cells for people who may not need mental health treatment. DCR responded that it had requested 35 new medical positions in the budget, supported by the governor, and said those positions are needed to meet basic care obligations for people in custody. The group did not take a vote on the proposed amendments. Instead, members agreed to continue the discussion, with the chair saying the reports, settlement tracker, 2010 MOA, and comparison guidelines would be distributed and used as the basis for future work. In the final discussion on work-plan priorities, members identified staffing shortages, physical plant limitations, and the need to examine humane alternatives and implementation challenges as key topics for upcoming meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• , clarifies that certain resale and occupancy restrictions apply only to projects developed prior to
• -year buyback restriction also from SB<00:15:47.280><c> 2070</c><00:15:48.000><c> SD1.
• :16:02.920><c> section</c> restrictions prescribed in this section restrictions prescribed in this section
• restrictions are also secured<00:16:30.440><c> by</c><00:16:30.520><c> restrictive</c><00:16:31.000>
• <c> covenants</c><00:16:31.760><c> and</c> secured by restrictive covenants and secured by restrictive

Bills: HB1700

Keywords: housing, expedited permits, disabilities, access, functional needs, local government, affordable housing, reporting requirements, 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint committees on Housing and Health and Human Services, along with related committees, heard and later took action on three housing bills. HB 1700 HD1, relating to housing and expedited permitting, received support from disability advocates, including the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities and a self-advocate who said faster permitting would help people with disabilities access more independent living options. The chairs said they would add amendments to ensure expedited permitting would not compromise ADA or Fair Housing Act protections and to require reporting on the number, type, and geographic distribution of projects so the program could be evaluated over time. The measure was recommended and adopted with amendments by the participating committees. HB 1777 HD2, which would require tenant protections for residents displaced by HHFDC-supported redevelopment projects, drew support from HHFDC, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Parents and Children Together, and numerous other organizations. Testimony emphasized the need for a right of first offer, replacement housing payments, relocation information, and tracking procedures to reduce displacement harms, especially for Native Hawaiian and public housing residents. In decision-making, the committees amended the bill to incorporate the Senate companion measure, rename the working group as the tenant protection working group, broaden its duties, and include a $75,000 appropriation for working group expenses. The committees also noted concerns about unequal treatment between tenants in publicly supported projects and private redevelopments, and referenced the KPT low-rise redevelopment as an example where required relocation assistance still did not proceed smoothly. The bill was recommended and adopted with amendments. HB 1975 HD1, relating to kupuna housing, would repeal the sunset on the state rent supplement program for kupuna, appropriate funds to HPHA, and add positions to support the program. HPHA, the Executive Office on Aging, OHA, Catholic Charities Hawaii, AARP Hawaii, Aloha Independent Living Hawaii, and others testified in support, with Catholic Charities describing how the subsidy helped a senior remain housed through major medical issues. The committees later recommended passage with amendments, including a technical correction to the number of positions and a date fix, and the recommendation was adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> procedure</c> That's a super restrictive procedure That's a super restrictive procedure when<00:
• </c> the the outcome of the restrictive the the outcome of the restrictive procedures<00:32:34.080><c
• </c> stepping back that restriction stepping back that restriction and<01:31:32.239><c> leveraging</c
• </c> in our most restrictive settings. in our most restrictive settings.
• </c> things like seclusion or restrictive things like seclusion or restrictive procedures<01:34:36.639

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't need more restrictions; we need more care.
• What we know is that restrictions...
• What we know is that restrictions...
• It makes life harder, smaller, more restricted.
• It makes life harder, smaller, more restricted.

Bills: SB6007, SB6186, SB6212

Keywords: assessment practices, public policy, children, youth, families, evaluation, outcomes, SNAP, nutrition, public health, food access, unhealthy foods, benefit program, assistance, pilot program, state support, public welfare, 904, all

Summary: The Senate Human Services Committee heard three bills on February 2. Senate Bill 6212, sponsored by Sen. Nobles, would create a Department of Commerce pilot program called the Families with Children Benefit Pilot, providing $300 per child per month to up to 1,000 eligible households for 24 months, with a control group receiving $20 per month. Committee staff said the pilot would begin in 2027 and require a report to the Legislature on whether a statewide program should be adopted. Sen. Nobles and several supporters argued the bill would reduce child poverty, improve family stability, and provide data on cash assistance; no vote was taken. The committee also heard Senate Bill 6186, sponsored by Sen. Warnick, which would direct DSHS to seek a federal waiver to prohibit SNAP benefits from being used to buy candy and sweetened beverages. Staff noted a preliminary fiscal note of about $781,000 in the first biennium and $320,000 in the next, with costs tied to applying for and implementing the waiver. Sen. Warnick said she was open to possible carve-outs or a narrower approach. Testimony was overwhelmingly opposed, with anti-hunger advocates, public health experts, grocers, and current or former SNAP users arguing the bill would be stigmatizing, hard to administer, costly for retailers and the state, and unlikely to improve diets; one witness supported the measure as a nutrition policy. Senate Bill 6707, also sponsored by Sen. Warnick, would have WSIPP study DCYF’s screening tools and risk assessment processes for child welfare referrals and their effects on outcomes such as services, placements, re-referrals, and fatalities. DCYF said it supports evaluating its risk assessment work but is already doing similar work with Chapin Hall, including piloting the North Carolina Family Assessment Scale, and asked how the bill would avoid duplication. The committee heard testimony on all three bills and then adjourned; members were reminded that amendments for Wednesday’s executive session are due by noon the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, they all fall within the umbrella of restrictive covenants, restrictive agreements.
• They can have similar restrictions, just a different structure.
• Yeah, they all fall within the umbrella of restrictive covenants, restrictive agreements.
• I've practiced in restrictive covenants for 20 plus years.
• They are more restrictive than Florida.

Summary: The committee heard several bills on commerce, tourism, labor, technology, and public safety. SB 1666, by Senator Graal, would adopt Florida’s version of UCC Article 12 to address commercial transactions involving digital assets such as cryptocurrency, blockchain, smart contracts, and NFTs; after a technical amendment, it was reported favorably. CS/SB 480, by Senator DiCeglie, would create affordable health coverage options for farmers and ranchers through a nonprofit agricultural organization model similar to Tennessee’s; supporters said it would expand access in rural areas, while opponents and some senators raised concerns about ACA protections, preexisting conditions, and state fiscal impacts. The committee also approved CS/SB 1172, which expands business development incentives for veterans and military spouses, including procurement preferences, fee waivers, tax exemptions, and an entrepreneurship program, after an amendment expanding hiring preferences for military spouses was adopted. The committee then took up SB 1400, which creates a process for removing nonconsensual AI-generated sexual deepfakes from covered online platforms within 24 to 48 hours and subjects noncompliant platforms to penalties under Florida’s deceptive trade practices law; an amendment carved out internet service providers, and the bill was reported favorably. SM 1488, a memorial urging Congress to create a sovereign wealth fund, drew opposition from a public school teacher who questioned its necessity and constitutionality, but it still passed. CS/SB 922, dealing with employment agreements, would strengthen enforcement of certain non-compete and garden leave agreements for employees with access to sensitive information; critics argued it would restrict workers and innovation, while supporters said it protects trade secrets and high-paying jobs. After an amendment, it was reported favorably. The committee also approved SB 1252, which would create a statewide system for sharing pawn and secondhand dealer data among law enforcement agencies, with an initial feasibility study cost estimated at $250,000 and questions raised about enforcement if agencies do not participate. Finally, CS/SB 1776, under the Whistleblower’s Act, would require advance notice and an opportunity to cure alleged violations, narrow retaliation and disclosure definitions, and limit claims when another statutory remedy exists; members questioned whether the changes could reduce employee protections or allow employers time to destroy evidence, but the bill was still under debate as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• But we restrict that in our state.
• But we restrict that in our state.
• But we restrict that in our state.
• But we restrict that in our state.
• ...of the mild restriction.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:15:44.199><c> use</c> the most combination of restricted use the most combination of restricted
• </c><00:15:54.639><c> use</c> um about 99% of all the restricted use um about 99% of all the restricted
• I went over that a little bit earlier in terms of our statutory authority of how we restrict restricted
• </c><00:27:01.559><c> restricted</c><00:27:01.960><c> use</c> how we restrict restricted use how we restrict
• restricted use pesticides<00:27:02.760><c> restrict</c><00:27:03.159><c> restricted</c><00:27:03.559

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: This joint informational briefing of Senate and House committees focused on restricted use pesticides in Hawaiʻi, with opening remarks framing the issue as one of health, environmental impact, and state-level regulation. The briefing reviewed the history of pesticide disclosure efforts, including prior county actions, a 2016 court ruling that shifted responsibility to the state, and Act 45, which enabled disclosure of restricted use pesticide data. Speakers highlighted 2019 reporting data showing concentrated use in parts of Oʻahu and Kauaʻi, especially near schools and communities, and identified fumigants such as 1,3-dichloropropene and metam sodium as among the heaviest-used products. Concerns were raised about potential links to cancer, respiratory illness, reproductive harms, Parkinson’s disease, and developmental effects, as well as the lack of long-term mixture studies and the need for better buffer zones, reporting, and farmer transition support. The Department of Agriculture’s pesticides program manager described the state’s regulatory framework, explaining the distinction between general use and restricted use pesticides and the department’s role under FIFRA and Hawaiʻi law. He outlined the branch’s enforcement, education/certification, registration, and laboratory functions, including inspections, complaint response, market surveillance, applicator certification, product review, groundwater protection modeling, and special registrations. He also noted staffing and resource limitations, including the absence of an in-house toxicologist and long-term monitoring capacity, and compared Hawaiʻi’s resources to California’s much larger pesticide regulatory program. He said the department supports Act 231, which was passed the previous year and is moving forward this session. A pediatrician speaking for the Hawaiʻi chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics emphasized concerns about chronic low-level pesticide exposure in children, citing AAP policy statements and technical reports that associate exposure with cancer, leukemia, birth defects, neurobehavioral issues, and asthma. Drawing on work with the Kauaʻi Joint Fact Finding Task Force, the speaker said the group found the west side of the island to be an unhealthy community but could not prove causation because of missing drift, geospatial, and biomarker data. The testimony pointed to elevated cancer mortality, pneumonia admissions, obesity, dialysis, and developmental delay indicators, and described concerns about pesticide drift near schools and homes, including reports of children becoming ill after nearby spraying and low levels of chlorpyrifos detected in dust samples. An environmental health scientist from the University of Hawaiʻi described a pilot project using restricted use pesticide data in a public health context. She said the project began after seeing maps of Central Oʻahu pesticide use and aimed to pair GIS data with health and ethnicity data, while also conducting community focus groups. Preliminary focus group themes included calls to action, voting and policymaker awareness, concern about pesticide use near homes and fields, lack of community consent, and a desire to stay engaged. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the briefing.

Transcript Highlights:

• restrictions.
• You're either restricting or you're not restricting, which is it?
• restrictions.
• You're either restricting or you're not restricting, which is it?
• You're either restricting or you're not restricting, which is it?

Bills: HF4456, HF4544, HF3698

Keywords: data broker, data brokerage, consumer privacy, personal data, data privacy, Minnesota attorney general, registration, public registry, civil penalties, enforcement, special revenue fund, privacy rights, data sales, data collection, consumer protection, chapter 325M, controller, processor, data broker registry, transparency

Transcript Highlights:

• Those individuals are restricted for minimum security.
• Those individuals are restricted for minimum security.
• Those individuals are restricted for minimum security.
• It had... ...a restriction applied to them.
• Other questions related to restrictions?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Correctional Consolidation and Collaboration met on January 12 to continue its review of DOC classification practices, with Senator Brownsberger and Representative Hunt co-chairing. After brief discussion of the prior hearing, members said there would likely be another opportunity for additional testimony, including possible video testimony from people inside facilities. The main presentation for the day was DOC’s classification system and a UMass Chan study of whether the system predicts institutional misconduct and whether overrides affect its accuracy or create racial/ethnic bias. DOC officials described the objective point-based classification system, its history, and the role of discretionary and non-discretionary overrides. They said the system is designed to balance public safety and reintegration, with initial classification emphasizing offense history and reclassification emphasizing institutional adjustment. DOC reported that, in the current population, about 16% are classified to maximum security, 74% to medium, and 10% to lower security. They also reviewed the non-discretionary restrictions that keep people out of minimum or medium security, and said discretionary overrides are used less often than the National Institute of Corrections’ suggested ceiling and are reviewed within six months. UMass Chan researchers said their analysis used historical DOC data from 2019 to 2022, focused mainly on about 7,600 male reclassification cases, and found that the scored custody level accurately predicted institutional misconduct. They said the tool performed well on standard statistical measures, but predictive accuracy declined after overrides were applied, with overlap appearing between minimum and medium groups. In a supplementary analysis, they said the loss of accuracy was driven primarily by non-discretionary restrictions rather than discretionary overrides. They also said the study did not find evidence of racial or ethnic bias in the tool itself, and that DOC’s current system is comparatively more lenient than many other states. Members and guests raised concerns about overclassification to medium security, the low share of people in minimum, the role of civil commitment restrictions, and whether the data captured historical bias or individual cases where overrides felt subjective. DOC and UMass Chan responded that the study was group-based, not case-specific, and that minimum-security rates are hard to compare across states because Massachusetts’ prison and county systems differ structurally. The commission did not take a vote or formal action, but asked members to send follow-up data questions by the end of the week for referral to DOC and the researchers.

Transcript Highlights:

• HRSA was trying to limit these types of restrictions.
• These restrictions do not benefit patients; they simply increase manufacturer profits.
• There are no restrictions on how 340B dollars are spent by hospitals.
• Manufacturer restrictions do not benefit patients. They simply increase pharmaceutical profits.
• Manufacturer restrictions do not benefit patients; they simply increase pharmaceutical profits.

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 2437, which would put the Department of Health’s authority to accredit opioid treatment programs into statute and allow the department to set a fee to cover the cost of those services. The prime sponsor and DOH said the bill would preserve a service that is especially important to tribal and rural providers and would be self-sustaining rather than supported by the general fund. Members asked about the relationship between DOH and HCA and whether the bill would duplicate existing authority; staff and the department said DOH already performs the accrediting role and the bill mainly formalizes that authority and fee-setting power. Public testimony on the bill was then closed. The committee then held an extensive work session on the federal 340B drug pricing program and later opened public testimony on House Bill 2145, which would prohibit manufacturers, distributors, and third-party logistics providers from restricting 340B drug acquisition or delivery and from requiring claims or utilization data as a condition of access. Committee staff and NCSL gave background on how 340B works, recent growth in the program, contract pharmacy issues, and state efforts in other jurisdictions. Testimony on HB 2145 was sharply divided: hospitals, community health centers, tribal representatives, contract pharmacies, and labor groups said the bill would protect safety-net providers, rural access, HIV and behavioral health services, and tribal programs from manufacturer restrictions; business groups, pharmaceutical companies, and employer coalitions argued the program has expanded beyond its original intent, lacks transparency, shifts costs to employers and taxpayers, and should be addressed through federal reform instead. No vote was taken in the excerpt. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 2155, which would bar non-human entities from using nursing titles such as RN, APRN, or LPN or otherwise implying they are licensed nurses. The prime sponsor said the bill is intended to protect patients from being misled by AI systems and to preserve transparency and public safety as health care technology expands. The Washington State Nurses Association testified in support, saying AI can be useful but should not replace nurses or be presented as a licensed professional. A member asked about enforcement and liability, and staff said they would follow up on those details.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're currently they are restricted from if someone... Chair and committee members.
• We also restrict grocery stores from selling spirits within the main store.
• And it was the states that, unfortunately, did not restrict agents that were hit hardest.
• And it was the states that, unfortunately, did not restrict agents that were hit hardest.
• It just basically repeals the restriction on the agents today.

Summary: The committee heard and advanced several bills. SB 624, by Senator Yarborough, would allow batterers intervention programs to offer optional supplemental faith-based activities, with no participant required to take part; supporters said it would expand provider options amid a shortage of certified programs, while opponents raised concerns about government speech and mixing religion with court-ordered programming. After debate, the bill was reported favorably 7-2. The committee also considered CS/SB 834, which repeals a 2022 restriction preventing licensed insurance agents from marketing or selling health care sharing ministries; supporters framed it as restoring choice and free speech, while opponents warned about consumer confusion, commissions, and lack of insurance protections. It was reported favorably 8-2. The committee next approved CS/SB 502, via a strike-all amendment, to give Florida concurrent jurisdiction over certain juvenile offenses on military installations so juveniles can be handled in state juvenile court rather than federal court; the amendment and bill both passed unanimously. CS/SB 52 also passed unanimously after testimony from church leaders and security personnel supporting an exemption from Class D/G licensing for unpaid armed security volunteers at places of worship. Supporters said the bill would clarify legal gray areas and help churches afford security, while members noted the broader concern that houses of worship need armed protection at all. Finally, the committee reported favorably SB 840, which revises last year’s emergency/local planning law by narrowing its application after storms from 100 miles to 50 miles of the storm track and exempting certain water, flood, and state/federal planning matters; local government representatives supported the clarification, and the bill passed 9-0. CS/SB 758, as amended, updated the membership of the Justice Administration Commission to better reflect the entities it oversees, and it also passed 9-0. The meeting ended with a recorded affirmative vote from Senator DeSigley on SB 624.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's not a restriction on companies.
• It's not a restriction on companies.
• It's not a restriction on companies.
• It's not a restriction on companies.
• It's not a restriction on companies.

Bills: HF3228, HF2441

Keywords: workers' compensation, insurance programs, employee protection, Minnesota statutes, safety regulations, prevailing wage, certified payroll, payroll reporting, construction contracts, public works, project registration, labor standards, contractor compliance, subcontractor reporting, state government, Department of Administration, Commissioner of Labor and Industry, Metropolitan Council, highway construction, public construction

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't need more restrictions; we need more care.
• The research behind these restrictions is weak and inconclusive.
• What we know is that restrictions...
• Barbara Baccaro: What we know is that restrictions create real barriers.
• It makes life harder, smaller, more restricted.

Summary: The Senate Human Services Committee heard testimony on three bills. SB 6212, sponsored by Sen. Nobles, would create a Department of Commerce pilot program providing monthly cash benefits to families with children who qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, with a control group and a final report to the Legislature on whether to expand the program statewide. Supporters said the pilot could reduce child poverty, improve family stability, and provide evidence on the effects of direct cash assistance; the sponsor acknowledged the bill would be expensive and said funding would need to be worked out. No vote was taken. SB 6186, sponsored by Sen. Warnick, would direct DSHS to seek a federal waiver to prohibit SNAP benefits from being used to buy candy and sweetened beverages, with annual reapplication if needed. The bill’s preliminary fiscal note was described as significant, and the sponsor said she was open to amendments, including possibly limiting the proposal to Sun Bucks. Testimony was overwhelmingly opposed from anti-hunger advocates, public health experts, economists, SNAP educators, and individuals with lived experience, who argued the restrictions would be costly, hard to administer, stigmatizing, and unlikely to improve nutrition; one supporter said the measure would promote healthier choices and reduce long-term health costs. No action was taken. SB 6707, also by Sen. Warnick, would have WSIPP study DCYF’s screening tools and risk assessment processes for child welfare referrals and their effects on outcomes such as services, removals, re-referrals, and fatalities. DCYF said it supports evaluating its risk assessment tool but is already working with Chapin Hall on a similar redesign and pilot of the North Carolina Family Assessment Scale, and asked how the bill would avoid duplicating that work. Sen. Warnick said the bill was intended to examine child welfare outcomes more broadly. The committee heard testimony but took no vote, and the chair announced amendments for Wednesday’s executive session are due by noon the next day before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those individuals are restricted for minimum security.
• made has been less restrictive in shortening timeframes, shortening point cutoffs, revising restrictions
• It had...” “...a restriction applied to them.
• Other questions related to restrictions?
• We used to restrict individuals who were sentenced to murder in the second; we restricted them for a

Summary: The Special Commission on Correctional Consolidation and Collaboration met on January 12 and heard a presentation from Department of Correction officials and UMass Chan researchers on DOC’s objective point-based classification system. DOC described how the system, in place since 2007, uses standardized criteria to assign custody levels and is intended to balance public safety with reintegration. Officials reviewed the system’s initial and reclassification tools, the role of trained classification staff, and the use of non-discretionary restrictions and discretionary overrides. They said the current population is about 16% maximum security, 74% medium, and 10% minimum/pre-release, and that discretionary overrides remain within national guidance levels. UMass Chan presented findings from a multi-year NIJ-funded study using historical DOC data from 2019 to 2022, focused mainly on male reclassification cases. Researchers said the scored custody level predicted institutional misconduct well, with stronger separation between minimum, medium, and maximum groups. They reported violent misconduct in the sample was under 5% over the follow-up period, while general misconduct ranged from about 30% to 45%. When DOC’s override-informed final custody levels were analyzed, predictive accuracy declined somewhat, and researchers said the reduction was driven primarily by non-discretionary restrictions rather than discretionary overrides. They noted that removing the non-discretionary restrictions, especially Code C civil-commitment-related restrictions, improved the model’s performance. Commission members and guests questioned whether the system overclassifies people into medium security, whether the low minimum-security rate reflects infrastructure and risk tolerance differences from other states, and how much historical practice and subjective judgment still affect placement. DOC officials said the restrictions are designed around safety concerns such as flight risk, serious legal issues, and medical needs, and that the system has been revised over time through revalidation. UMass researchers said there is no compelling evidence that release from minimum security is necessary for successful community outcomes once risk level is accounted for, and they emphasized that comparisons with other states are difficult because Massachusetts’ correctional structure is different. The commission asked members to submit follow-up questions for additional data, and a public commenter argued that the data suggest overclassification to medium security harms incarcerated people.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> a bill that restricts what you can do. a bill that restricts what you can do.
• </c> restricted to do. restricted to do. &gt;&gt; Mr.<00:18:48.720><c> Emerch.</c> &gt;&gt; Mr.
• ><00:20:42.799><c> restricting.
• </c> restricting or you're not restricting. restricting or you're not restricting.
• </c> they their access will be restricted. they their access will be restricted.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 2294 prohibits negative use restrictions on real property that have the effect of limiting
• This might be through a contract, a deed restriction, a restrictive covenant, or some type of other recorded
• related to restrictions within a retail center.
• that prevents or restricts the use of real property for a grocery store...
• Imposing a negative use restriction that prevents or restricts the use of real property for a grocery

Summary: The Consumer Protection and Business Committee held public hearings on three bills. House Bill 2229 would update the professional engineers registration act by removing the U.S. citizenship requirement for board members, increasing pro tem board positions, giving the board more discretion over experience and continuing education requirements, removing some registration exclusions, and making various technical updates. The bill sponsor and the board described it as a cleanup and modernization measure, and a board representative said one naming change in the draft was unintended and would be corrected. No public testimony was taken before the hearing was suspended and later closed. House Bill 2274 would revise the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act after a Washington Supreme Court decision led to a wave of lawsuits over email subject lines. The bill would require a sender to have a “reliable basis” to know an email is held by a Washington resident, narrow when a subject line is actionable, require recipients to show they reviewed and relied on the email to recover damages, and repeal the act’s per se Consumer Protection Act violation while keeping statutory damages. Retailers, small business owners, hospitality groups, and e-commerce representatives supported the bill, saying the current interpretation is producing costly, technical lawsuits over ordinary promotional language and creating settlement pressure even without consumer harm. Consumer advocates opposed the bill, arguing it would weaken protections against deceptive subject lines and that the current law already targets false or misleading claims. The committee took no final action on the bill. House Bill 2294 would prohibit future negative use restrictions on real property that block grocery stores or pharmacies, with exceptions for existing restrictions, relocations, and certain retail centers. The sponsor said the measure is intended to improve food and pharmacy access, especially after grocery closures such as the one in Lake City, and noted similar local ordinances already exist. Food industry and grocery association witnesses generally supported the bill as a way to reduce barriers to food access and help independent grocers, while also asking for clearer guardrails to avoid unintended effects on legitimate business arrangements. The sponsor said she was open to working on enforcement and other details. The committee then moved to executive session and passed House Bill 1269, which would adjust pawn broker loan terms, interest, document preparation fees, storage fees, and allow online payment for renewals. Members described it as a modest increase after 11 years without changes, and the bill was reported out of committee with a due pass recommendation by voice vote, with 15 members voting in the affirmative.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is about protection, not restriction.
• And it's about making sure restriction.
• Yes, key card access will be restricted. >> Restricted to everybody?
• Yes, key card access will be restricted. restricted. restricted.
• &gt;&gt; Restricted<00:17:36.400><c> to</c> &gt;&gt; Restricted to &gt;&gt; Restricted to &gt;&gt; everybody

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson and State Patrol Colonel Christina Bogey announced that weapon screening will begin Tuesday at the Minnesota State Capitol at the start of the 2026 legislative session. They said the change is based on an independent security assessment and the Axtell report’s top recommendation, and framed it as an added layer of protection rather than a weapons ban or a change in state law. Both emphasized that the Capitol will remain open, accessible, and welcoming while reducing preventable risks, citing heightened threats to public officials and the recent murders and shootings involving Minnesota lawmakers and their families. Bogey outlined the screening plan: visitors will use four public access points, with the south ground-level entrance as the primary entry, while other exterior doors will not be open for public entry. She said the process should take only seconds for most people, with bags going through separate scanners and additional screening only if needed. The Capitol will close to the general public at 4:30 p.m. on weekdays, though accommodations will be made when hearings or floor sessions run later. She also said the entrances and screening areas are ADA accessible and that staff will be available to help guide visitors. In questions, officials said prohibited items are defined by statute and administrative rules and referred reporters to the State Patrol website for the full list. They confirmed that lawful permit-to-carry holders may still bring firearms, but must declare the permit, show government ID, and go through screening; elected officials are exempt, while staff are not. They also said the State Patrol will fund the rollout from its own budget, with costs to be evaluated over time, and that tunnel key-card access will be restricted to everyone. The briefing ended with a plan to demonstrate the screening equipment upstairs.

Transcript Highlights:

• But we restrict that in our state.
• So if they had a, and restrictive covenants, not all hospitals do them.
• When non-compete clauses restrict where physicians can practice after leaving a job, those restrictions
• There's some restrictions, I think, in Arkansas.
• There's some restrictions, I think, in Arkansas.

Summary: The committee first met in executive session and adopted a House committee substitute combining House Bills 1850 and 1975, which was then voted do pass by a 16-0 roll call. The substitute was described as incorporating federal PBM-related transparency and audit provisions, including requirements intended to ensure fair audits, greater transparency for employers and patients, and protections for pharmacies so they are not reimbursed below drug cost and receive a fair fee. Members said the package was a compromise and a needed step because pharmacies are closing. The committee then heard House Bills 2318 and 2368, related to artificial intelligence and mental health. The sponsors said the bills are aimed at truth in advertising, barring AI platforms from marketing themselves as mental health professionals or therapy providers, while not banning AI use in health care generally. Testimony from supporters emphasized concerns about minors and adults relying on chatbots for mental health guidance and the need to protect consumers from misleading claims. The committee adopted an amendment adding social workers to the bill string, rolled it into a substitute, and voted the combined House committee substitute do pass 14-0. Next, House Bill 3313, described as an AOT bill from the prior week, was voted do pass 14-0 without discussion. House Bill 2745 was then amended and passed 14-0; the sponsor explained the changes would require a prompt physical exam for children entering foster care, allow a physician or nurse practitioner to perform it, try to continue existing developmental, behavioral, or emotional care when possible, and require biological parental consent before updating vaccines at the initial visit. House Bill 2463 also received a substitute to close a loophole involving referral payments when a prospective resident or legal representative cancels a contract, and the committee voted the substitute do pass 14-0. The committee also heard House Concurrent Resolution 28, which would designate the last full week of April as Infertility Awareness Week in Missouri. The sponsor linked the resolution to broader efforts to expand fertility access, and supporters, including a patient sharing her infertility experience, spoke about the emotional and physical toll of infertility and the value of awareness. Finally, House Bill 2979, the Rural Missouri Rural Doctors Act, drew extensive testimony. The sponsor and supporters argued it would limit physician non-compete agreements to one year and five miles for nonprofit employers to improve rural access and physician mobility, while opponents from hospitals and health systems said the bill would weaken recruitment, hurt financially stressed rural hospitals, and create uneven treatment between nonprofit and for-profit employers. No vote was taken on HB 2979 in the portion provided.