Transcript Highlights:

• At this time, we will convene the Senate Committee on Governmental Organization, the Joint Legislative
• You know, part of the reason why I requested us...
• Chairman, I'd like to respectfully request that we request that they come back when that action item
• As a sheriff, my biggest issue is how I can get the message out in an appropriate platform in the appropriate
• Out in an appropriate platform in the appropriate timeframe.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on California’s emergency alert and warning systems, especially in light of recent Southern California wildfires and the January 9 evacuation alert that was mistakenly sent to millions of residents. Opening remarks emphasized the loss of life, the strain on first responders, the importance of timely warnings, and concerns that public trust in alerts has been undermined by delays, confusion, and over-alerting. Members repeatedly raised questions about how to improve speed, accuracy, coordination across jurisdictions, and public understanding of the difference between evacuation warnings and orders. Cal OES staff described the state’s alert and warning framework, including SEMS, the State Warning Center, IPAWS, WEA, and EAS, and said local governments retain primary responsibility for issuing alerts because they know local roads, shelters, and hazards best. They said Cal OES supports local agencies with training, technical assistance, testing, and backup alerting help when requested, and that local alerting authorities must test their systems every 30 days and complete FEMA-required training. Members pressed Cal OES on gaps in smaller or under-resourced jurisdictions, the lack of a statewide unified system, compliance monitoring, redundancy for people without reliable technology, and whether the state should take a more active role. Cal OES said it could assist smaller jurisdictions and step in during emergencies, but that a statewide system would require further analysis and funding. Sheriff Eric Taylor of San Benito County emphasized that local control is essential because counties differ widely in structure, geography, and alerting responsibilities, and he described the challenges of rural areas, limited cell coverage, and multiple platforms such as Nixle, Reverse 911, and social media. Nick Russell of Watch Duty said the nonprofit fills gaps by providing fast, geospatially detailed wildfire information from volunteers and public data, and argued that context and redundancy are critical because official alerts often arrive too late or lack enough detail. Members praised Watch Duty’s usefulness and asked about incorporating similar capabilities into state systems. Public commenters also raised the need for broader redundancy, including earthquake-warning partnerships, and wildfire survivors urged the committee to address the confusing patchwork of alerts and to honor prior compensation commitments to PG&E fire survivors. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational only and adjourned after member questions and public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a request bill in Reasser's department. I thought I did that. Thank you so much.
• The Chair requests the enacting clause of the bill be stricken without objection.
• To talk to me about my legislation, Senator Kirk. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• The chair requests the enacting clause of the bill be stricken without objection.
• This piece of legislation just deals with this one at this time with the title.

Bills: HB3044, HB3465, HB3625, HB3704, HB3759, HB3920, HB3972, HB4191, HB4311, HB4426

Keywords: veterans, tax refund, Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs, capital improvement, donations, Oklahoma Emission Reduction, incentive, taxation, environment, revenue, investment, school funds, treasurer, education funding, financial policy, income tax, scholarship, tax credit, Oklahoma Tax Commission, school funding

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:09:37.279><c> have</c> the author and other legislators have the author and other legislators
• </c> done as this moves in the legislative done as this moves in the legislative process.<00:10:36.000
• </c> would not apply uh to this new legisl would not apply uh to this new legisl proposed<00:36:20.320
• ><c> legislation.
• </c> proposed legislation. proposed legislation.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• of the legislative body.
• We've got a request for division of the chamber, so we'll start with the Senate.
• They have a high, but it's what is appropriated.
• They have a high, but it's what is appropriated.
• Never mind, stand on legislation. Okay.

Summary: The committee first reviewed a list of bills already marked ready for due pass, including several House bills (HB 1010, 1018, 1020, 1023, 1041, 1055, 1077) and Senate bills (SB 4, 16, 24, 55, 59), along with a few items in the budget packet. The JBC Personnel Subcommittee report was then taken up, and Senator Rice offered a substitute motion to separate out the governor’s staff-related item for a separate vote and a roll-call division. After discussion about the request and the underlying personnel issue, the substitute motion failed on a roll-call division, and the committee then adopted the personnel subcommittee report as a whole. The committee next heard questions for Treasurer John Thurston on House Bill 1034 and the Treasurer’s office budget request. Members raised concerns about salary increases for executive staff, the size of raises under the approved pay plan, office hours, and whether the office was prioritizing raises appropriately. Thurston said the salaries were within the previously approved pay plan, that the request was for full funding of that plan with a negotiated 10% amount, and that office hours remained the same though vault tours had been adjusted for scheduling. Several members expressed dissatisfaction with the increases, while others noted the compromise reached with committee leadership. The committee then adopted the letter for HB 1034. The committee also considered special language items, including a proposal tied to extension office improvements through a DFA-administered program for the Division of Agriculture, which was described as unfunded. That item was adopted. The committee then moved through the remaining ready items, giving do-pass or adopt motions to SB 29, SB 51, HB 1034, HB 1010, HB 1018, HB 1020, HB 1023, HB 1041, HB 1055, HB 1077, SB 16, SB 23, SB 24, SB 55, and SB 59. SB 4 was set aside as not ready. The meeting adjourned with notice that the committee would reconvene in 15 minutes in another room to handle special language.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:00:56.199><c> for</c> more go Governor bonding requests for more go Governor bonding requests
• </c> the governor's capital budget request the governor's capital budget request for<00:51:59.520><c>
• </c> for you um the proposed legislation for you um the proposed legislation creates<00:52:32.280><c>
• In addition to the financing requests, there are some policy requests that accompany these, and I will
• In addition to the financing requests, there are some policy requests that accompany these, and I will

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• This comes from the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.
• We've called everybody that has requested to speak.
• We've called everybody that has requested to speak.
• Requested to speak.
• that when we requested a special session last year.

Summary: The joint House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees met to hear identical Arizona tax conformity bills, HB 2153 and SB 1106, which would conform state tax law to the federal Internal Revenue Code as of Jan. 1, 2026, with some provisions applied retroactively to tax year 2025. Staff explained that the bills exclude the federal senior deduction for those 65 and older, the higher state and local tax deduction, and the new car loan interest deduction, while including a $6,000 retirement-income deduction for taxpayers 60 and older, a $6,000 Roth IRA contribution deduction, a higher dependent tax credit, and a deduction for child and dependent care expenses above the federal credit. The JLBC fiscal note estimated a $441.3 million general fund revenue loss in FY 2026, and members discussed that this was roughly the same as full conformity because the bill’s adjustments offset some of the federal changes. Bill sponsors and supporters argued the measure should be enacted early to give taxpayers and tax preparers certainty before filing season, noting that the Department of Revenue had already issued forms assuming conformity and that delay could force amended returns. They said the bill reflects a negotiated package that preserves most of the federal tax relief while tailoring it for Arizona, especially by lowering the senior deduction age to 60 and replacing the auto loan deduction with family-focused provisions such as the higher child credit and child care deduction. The Arizona Society of CPAs and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club supported the bills, emphasizing the need for early conformity and fewer filing complications. Opponents, including Save Our Schools Arizona, the Arizona Center for Economic Progress, Opportunity Arizona, and several individuals, argued the package would reduce state revenue, worsen the structural deficit, and mainly benefit higher-income taxpayers and corporations. Some witnesses criticized the inclusion of federal school-choice-related provisions and warned about uncertainty around future federal guidance, while others said the bill should not move ahead before the budget process. Members also debated whether taxpayers would need to file amended returns if the state later diverged from the Department of Revenue forms, and whether the senior and child care provisions were targeted or equitable. The transcript ends during public testimony, with no final committee vote or action shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so we provided just some additional language really to address the concern of if a legislator or
• or accept a legislative campaign contribution by affirmative act on any day during which the Senate
• </c> accept by affirmative act a legislative accept by affirmative act a legislative campaign<00:04:17.280
• Um, but the requested change from some members was option one. ...request of some concerned senators
• </c><00:15:18.240><c> and</c> connected to any legislation and connected to any legislation and you<00

Keywords: 916, all

Summary: The Senate rules committee continued work on a proposed rule restricting campaign fundraising in the Capitol and during session or special session. Senator Nethercott and LSO attorney Mr. Shaw explained that the draft was revised to add clarity after concerns that the earlier language could unintentionally penalize a senator who merely received a contribution without affirmatively soliciting it. The committee discussed two options: option one, which would prohibit knowingly soliciting a contribution and accepting it by affirmative act, and option two, which would prohibit knowingly soliciting or accepting a legislative campaign contribution by affirmative act. A new subsection C was also added to make clear the rule would not apply when a senator merely discovers that a contribution was made and took no affirmative act to solicit or receive it. Members focused on how the term “solicit” should be understood, including whether a campaign website donate button or online promotion would count as solicitation. Mr. Shaw said the rule does not define the term and suggested it should be applied reasonably, noting that a static donate button may be treated differently from actively promoting donations. Several senators said subsection C addressed the main concern about accidental receipt of a mailed contribution, but that further guidance may still be needed on passive receipt and how to handle donations connected to pending legislation. Senator Duro said the committee was responding to an unacceptable incident that occurred in the building and wanted to make clear such conduct would not be tolerated. After discussion, Senator Rothfuss moved option two and Senator Gierau seconded. The committee voted to adopt option two, with Senators Gierau, Nethercott, Salazar, and Chairman Biteman voting aye; Senator Rothfuss also voted aye. The committee then adjourned, and it was noted that the adopted rule would become part of the permanent Senate rules unless changed at the start of a future session.

Transcript Highlights:

• Primarily in the foreign subpoenas and summonses and other requests section.
• She gives it appropriate. Okay. I think a simple yes is good there.
• And this legislation is just really designed to address that.
• I think, you know, we really need to request this data. It will drive up costs.
• So this doesn't, this legislation does not completely eliminate facility fees.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Persons disrupting legislative proceedings are subject to removal, arrest, or other appropriate legal
• and 72, AB 1863, DeMaio, to the Appropriations Committee.
• I appreciate their contributions to help us draft legislation that appropriately balances legitimate
• If you read the last paragraph in this bill, it states the legislative...
• This legislation is nothing more than an effort to protect a failing project from public and legislative

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This does not grant any appropriations. It doesn't require that.
• I was prepared to request a jury. ...trial.
• I was prepared to request a jury trial if it came to that.
• What, I mean, appropriations. What was that? Money. Do we have? This is not an appropriation bill.
• Some of this ties to our budget request.

Keywords: 985, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> to be more appropriate program for them. to be more appropriate program for them.
• I have really two... is an additional appropriation of the 2 is an additional appropriation of the 2
• </c> program with a separate budget request. program with a separate budget request.
• c> could</c><00:37:16.160><c> expect</c> annual appropriation we could expect annual appropriation we
• . legislation. legislation.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Appropriations Committee. The committee is called to order.
• And the challenge that I have is that this really was an ongoing appropriation when we appropriated it
• a specific appropriation for ESA administration.
• a specific appropriation for an ESA administration other states use ...to request a specific appropriation
• more money or vote for appropriating more money.

Summary: The committee first heard HB 2584, which would prohibit public monies from being used for genetic sequencing procedures involving devices made by companies owned or substantially controlled by entities domiciled in a foreign adversary. The sponsor said the bill is intended to protect genetic data from being sold or used against the United States. There was no public testimony, and the committee approved the bill on a 13-5 vote for a do pass recommendation. The committee then took up HB 2804, which creates a rural development and housing tax credit capped at $2 million per year and tied to federal low-income housing tax credit projects in counties under 800,000 population. Supporters, including the sponsor, the Flagstaff mayor, and housing investors/developers, argued it would leverage private capital to address rural affordable housing shortages, especially for seniors, veterans, and low-income residents. Opponents, including the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, argued state LIHTC programs are inefficient, costly, hard to oversee, and can add complexity and higher per-unit costs. The bill passed 13-4 with one not voting. HB 2388, as amended, appropriates $100,000 for the Arizona Commerce Authority to study the economic benefits of small modular reactors and data centers, with a report due June 30, 2027. Supporters said the study would help Arizona plan for energy demand and data center growth, while opponents argued the agency should use existing funds instead of a new appropriation. The committee adopted the amendment and then approved the bill 10-7 with one not voting. The committee also received a presentation from the Auditor General on county treasurer procedural reviews, including the response to the Santa Cruz County treasurer embezzlement case and the office’s ramp-up plan for reviews and staffing. Later, the committee approved HB 2352, which appropriates $2,385,900 in FY2029 to make the Auditor General’s county treasurer review funding ongoing. Members supporting the bill said the office needs certainty to plan audits and retain staff, while opponents objected to funding it so far in advance during budget uncertainty. The bill passed 11-7. The committee also approved HB 2418, as amended, which directs $600,000 to be evenly distributed among five county sheriff task forces in Cochise, Coconino, Navajo, Pinal, and Yuma counties; supporters said it codifies the long-standing distribution practice, and it passed 17-1. Finally, the committee heard HB 2499, which would provide $2.6 million and 12 FTEs to the Department of Education for ESA administration; supporters argued the program’s rapid growth requires more staff for enrollment, reviews, and accountability, while members questioned the lack of standardized testing data and how to measure student outcomes. The transcript ends during that discussion, before a final vote on HB 2499.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:39:04.480><c> with</c> the committee on appropriations with the committee on appropriations with
• </c><00:39:17.520><c> with</c> the committee on appropriations with the committee on appropriations with
• /c><01:11:51.840><c> District</c> requested by the Special District requested by the Special District
• </c><02:42:03.120><c> I</c> from public information requests. I from public information requests.
• Chair, in the Appropriations Committee, we offered a strike-below for this legislation following further

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, people around there can request, and I did request from TCEQ a public hearing, a public notice, and
• From this legislation and certain committees that will recommend what is and is not appropriate to be
• Recommending to the legislature that the institution's appropriate... Appropriations be withheld.
• It's finances being appropriated, it's appropriations being withheld. Is that not correct?
• truly your request.

Bills: SJR39, SB22, SB30, SB33, SB34, SB37, SB75, SB209, SB310, SB505, SB552, SB618, SB626, SB636, SB732, SB747, SB762, SB769, SB819, SB825, SB870, SB926, SB964, SB1030, SB1080, SB1099, SB1124, SB1177, SB1208, SB1233, SB1314, SB1325, SB1333, SB1405, SB1455, SB1506, SB1524, SB1541, SB1577, SB1579, SB1596, SB1646, SB1667, SB1727, SB1750, SB1758, SB1760, SB1791, SB1804, SB1806, SB1869, SB1923, SB1927, SB1951, SB1960, SB1962, SB2023, SB2024, SB2056, SB2078, SB2122, SB2129, SB2180, SB2183, SB2185, SB2207, SB2252, SB2361, SB2365, SB2368, SB2405, SB2411, SB2420, SB2425, SB2569, SB2717, SJR36, SJR50, SJR39, SJR63, SJR68, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR37, SCR42, SCR29, SB762, SB1596, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB1505, SB583, SB957, SB1502, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1433, SB1434, SB310, SB505, SB264, SB1364, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB619, SB1122, SB1877, SB732, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1333, SB1436, SB964, SB287, SB2143, SB261, SB1247, SB1882, SB618, SB393, SB2243, SB2226, SB1919, SB1791, SB22, SB651, SB1080, SB826, SB1079, SB1243, SB1504, SB1851, SB1879, SB2237, SB1257, SB2034, SB1522, SB1151, SB596, SB1191, SB226, SB570, SB870, SB991, SB60, SB1401, SB1728, SB586, SB529, SB217, SB209, SB1923, SB1839, SB387, SB1874, SB1872, SB1873, SB1921, SB1883, SB1620, SB1838, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB2166, SB510, SB33, SB2420, SB1860, SB1541, SB1314, SB1398, SB1869, SB1750, SB855, SB1233, SB2425, SB2037, SB1758, SB1759, SB2365, SB1924, SB1818, SB1405, SB1762, SB1968, SB1977, SB2077, SB2321, SB1662, SB1663, SB2124, SB2204, SB1855, SB863, SB37, SB819, SB2078, SB2252, SB1962, SB2253, SB825, SB1577, SB1184, SB2018, SB2206, SB1901, SB1030, SB2368, SB1963, SB1960, SB1643, SB1625, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB231, SB2411, SB1085, SB2431, SB2231, SB1490, SB530, SB34, SB1261, SB552, SB1099, SB1646, SB2180, SB1804, SB1937, SB1936, SB2569, SB1372, SB1208, SB1124, SB1506, SB1806, SB1868, SB2361, SB2314, SB769, SB1409, SB2122, SB434, SB1214, SB1951, SB2183, SB2046, SB1667, SB1870, SB1727, SB2405, SB2127, SB1975, SB1760, SB1734, SB1335, SB2066, SB2129, SB2246, SB2439, SB1624, SB1244, SB1468, SB2717, SB1612, SB1262, SB604, SB2395, SB2185, SB1832, SB1745, SB1746, SB2207, SB2023, SB1784, SB1524, SB626, SB528, SB437, SB269, SB1137, SB968, SB636, SB747, SB1325, SB1789, SB1455, SB2056, SB75, SB1940, SB2052, SB1927, SB2010, SB1579, SB2068, SB3034, SB844, SB1920, SB1177, SB1558, SB1236, SB1044, SB926, SB884, SB463, SB331, SB227, SB240, SB517, SB1200, SB1410, SB1626, SB1845, SB1863, SB2216, SB2681, SB1717, SB2053, SB546, SB2141, SB2949, SB2323, SB2200, SB2332, SB2199, SB1642, SB1150, SB1757, SB2050, SB1138, SB2051, SB2626, SB2458, SB1864, SB30, SB2201, SB1862, SB1583, SB1583, SB1055, SB2660, SB1898, SB2662, SB2662, SB2161, SB2161, SB2964, SB2881, SB1065, SB1065, SB801, SB2743, SB2533, SB2533, SB1413, SB1413

Keywords: constitutional amendment, veto override, legislature power, governor, Texas Constitution, Texas, moving image industry, incentive program, film production, grant funding, job creation, economic development, wildfire, wildfire mitigation, wildfire prevention, volunteer fire department, Texas A&M Forest Service, West Texas A&M University, prescribed burning, fuel loading

Transcript Highlights:

• The rushed legislative process this bill has seen, where because...
• That was a request from, we had engagement with the governor's office and that was a request from the
• The goals of this legislation is to fill those gaps.
• Members, I look forward to your questions and, when the time is appropriate, would respectfully request
• Thank you for consideration of SP 48 and at the appropriate time I request an aye vote. Thank you.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Are there any persons here at the appropriate time? We'll wait for a motion to move that.
• time, I would respectfully request an aye vote.
• Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support. Thank you.
• So at the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
• And SB 1229, Allen, motion is due pass to Appropriations. Alanis? No.

Summary: The committee considered several coastal, climate, and air quality measures. Senator Laird presented SCR 136 marking the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act and Coastal Conservancy Act, and SJR 12 opposing the federal offshore oil and gas leasing program; both drew broad support from environmental groups, local governments, and other advocates, with no opposition heard. Senator Padilla presented SB 10, requiring state climate plans to include gender impact assessments, with supporters arguing climate harms fall disproportionately on women and LGBTQ+ people; the bill also drew no opposition in the hearing. Senator Padilla also presented SB 675 to restructure the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District board and expand public transparency, while supporters cited severe air quality problems and opponents raised concerns about unfunded mandates, consultation, and impacts on local permitting and economic development. Senator Allen presented SB 1229 to limit disaster-rebuild coastal permit exemptions when replacement structures would newly impede coastal access or sensitive protections, with supporters saying it would prevent investor abuse of post-disaster rebuilding rules. After testimony, the committee took up the measures and recorded votes. SCR 136, SJR 12, SB 10, SB 675, and SB 1229 all advanced on party-line or near-party-line votes, with some members voting no on the more regulatory measures. The consent calendar was also approved, including ACR 157, SB 899, SB 949, SB 963, SB 1008, SB 1207, SB 1428, and SJR 5. All of the listed measures were sent onward, generally to Appropriations, and the committee concluded its hearing after the roll calls.

Transcript Highlights:

• Lastly, we have the Legislative Coordinating Commission, the $5,000 there was an appropriation in each
• As president of Minnesota Children's Museum, Kryzen said they do not take an appropriation request from
• Kryzen said that as president of Minnesota Children's Museum, they do not take an appropriation request
• In the 2023 legislative session, we passed an appropriations bill that included significant funding for
• So I would just like to, based on their request, they want a little bit more than we originally appropriated

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Those requests.
• The most recent NHMA legislative bulletin put out states that any individual anywhere could make a request
• with the request for electronic request with the request or<01:35:12.520><c> choosing</c><01:35:12.840
• and then last year and this requests and then last year and this legislation<04:07:30.040><c> passed
• </c> a right to request that uh to request a right to request that uh to request that<04:26:36.800><c

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee opened its hearing with a procedural discussion about a forthcoming Monday hearing, and the chair confirmed that any amendment deemed non-germane would be made public in advance and included in the calendar. The committee then took up House Bill 6, which would replace the word “citizen” in the Right-to-Know law with “any person,” allow requesters to specify the format of records, and expressly reference preliminary drafts circulated to a quorum or majority of a public body as disclosable material. The sponsor said the bill was intended to clarify existing law, remove uncertainty after a Rochester-related dispute over requester eligibility, and make records easier to obtain electronically unless doing so would be impossible, unusual, unduly burdensome, or harmful to recordkeeping integrity. Testimony was mixed. Cordell Johnston, speaking for himself as a municipal attorney, opposed most of the bill, especially the requirement that records be delivered electronically or by mail, arguing that out-of-state or out-of-country requests can be fishing expeditions that impose significant burdens on towns and clerks. He said local residents already can obtain records at town hall and that many municipalities voluntarily email records as a courtesy, but should not be required to mail large volumes of material. He also said the preliminary-draft language was unnecessary because such drafts are already covered when circulated to a quorum or majority. Representative Alexander raised concerns about the breadth of “any person,” potential abuse by bad actors, and the cost to municipalities, while Representative Peternell asked about whether the bill should account for nonresident property owners and business owners. The sponsor responded that limiting requesters by residency would not meaningfully stop abuse and said he did not know the bill’s fiscal impact, though he suggested it might improve efficiency. Yil Biset of the ACLU of New Hampshire testified in support of HB 6, calling it a modest and reasonable transparency measure. He said the preliminary-draft language was acceptable and consistent with existing exemption language in the public-meeting and documents statutes, and he said he was not aware of foreign-bot document requests occurring in New Hampshire. He also noted that current law already requires electronic disclosure when records exist electronically and can reasonably be provided that way. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I would move adoption at the appropriate time. All right. I think that is the appropriate time.
• variations: temporary appropriations, American Rescue Plan Act appropriations, Infrastructure Investment
• I have two requests on E520. I have two requests.
• Okay, and you requested that information before this meeting? I requested it publicly. Okay.
• Okay, and you requested that information before this meeting. I requested it publicly. Okay.

Summary: The council opened with a prayer, approved the prior meeting minutes, and received the February 2026 Monthly Revenue Report from Carlos Silva of the Bureau of Legislative Research. He reported gross revenues of $5.36 billion and net collections of $4.5 billion, both above the prior year to date, and said the updated forecast now shows a larger expected surplus. Members asked about declines in some tax categories, natural gas severance fee fluctuations, inflation, and economic development incentives; Silva attributed several changes to timing, refunds, tax cuts, weather, and price volatility, and generally described the state’s revenue trend as positive. The Executive Committee, Administrative Rules, Claims Review, Game and Fish, Higher Education, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Medicaid studies, Occupational Licensing Review, State Insurance Programs Oversight, and other subcommittee reports were adopted. The Medicaid studies report drew extended discussion about DHS staffing and contract nursing costs at state hospitals and human development centers; DHS officials said they were working on a recruitment and retention plan, reported significant vacancies and turnover, and said the state was not at risk of overspending the contracts. Several members urged reducing reliance on contract labor and moving staff onto state payrolls. The Review Subcommittee report prompted questions about a Department of Public Safety aircraft maintenance item and a Department of Shared Administrative Services contract for Deloitte to implement performance and goals management software tied to the state’s new personnel system. After discussion, the aircraft maintenance item was held briefly and then withdrawn from the hold, while the shared services contract was explained as a one-time integration/configuration project for a system that will support employee evaluations and performance-based pay; the report and the separate contract vote were approved. The Personnel Subcommittee also heard testimony from Commerce Secretary Hugh McDonald about reductions in force at the Division of Services for the Blind, which he attributed to funding shortfalls and fiscal mismanagement; members questioned the impact on blind and visually impaired clients, the status of board appointments, and whether federal funds could be at risk. The report was adopted with immediate consideration, and the meeting ended after filing the remaining APER report and adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> consideration of this3 million requests consideration of this3 million requests the<00:04:31.280
• The city is requesting an appropriation of $12.3 million in funds to support this significant regional
• </c><00:09:29.839><c> an</c><00:09:29.959><c> appropriation</c> city is is requesting an appropriation
• city is is requesting an appropriation of<00:09:30.640><c> 12.3</c><00:09:31.360><c> million</c><00:
• It was a complete rebuild the last request, and that's what this request is for as well. Thank you.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all