Transcript Highlights:

• Then Section 7 of the bill is repealing the campaign disclosure statements, so Section 4 is the meat
• So moving on to subsection 5, this is your 48-hour supplemental statements.
• It also requires a candidate who is not running to only file the annual statement.
• So sub 3, bottom of page 16 is the annual statement, as Chairman Steiner alluded to.
• I mean, just like anything else, a job statement. Well, I think they have to.

Bills: SB2156

Keywords: campaign finance, disclosure, political contributions, election transparency, North Dakota Century Code, 908, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to review HB 2156, which reorganizes North Dakota campaign finance disclosure law by repealing Chapter 16.1 and moving the provisions into a new Chapter 16.2 with mostly technical cross-reference updates. Legislative Council and the Secretary of State’s office walked through the bill section by section, explaining that most language is carried over from current law, with some cleanup to definitions, reporting requirements, public access rules, and filing procedures. The committee discussed how the new chapter would apply to candidates, candidate committees, political committees, political parties, ballot measure groups, and conduits. Several substantive issues were raised and adjusted during the discussion. Members questioned the open-records language for expenditures and contributions over $250, the use of “deposit” versus “receipt” as the reporting trigger, and whether the 48-hour supplemental reporting deadline should be changed to three calendar days; the group ultimately favored keeping 48 hours and using “deposit” consistently. They also clarified reporting dates, including changing one special-election deadline from 40 days to 39 days, and confirmed that balances of campaign funds would be reported but not made publicly available. The Secretary of State’s office also explained that the bill would make late fees public and that the chapter-wide penalty for willful violations remains a Class A misdemeanor. The main policy change debated at length was the late-filing fee schedule. Members expressed concern that the existing penalties were too low to deter intentional non-filers, and after discussion the committee agreed to increase the final late fee from $100 to $500 while keeping the new public posting of delinquent filers. The committee also reviewed an inflation-adjustment provision for reporting thresholds and the “ultimate true source of funds” language, which was described as existing law being carried into the new chapter. The meeting ended with the understanding that additional drafting changes would be made and that the bill would be ready for further committee action later in the week.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm going to make brief opening statements, then I'll turn to Ranking Member Markey to do the same.
• Mulligan will be recognized for their statements.
• purposes of an opening statement. to serve in these roles.
• Ask unanimous consent that the nominee's full statements be included in the record.
• Yeah, my statement was just a little different.

Keywords: SBA, small business, nominations, Bill Briggs, Casey Mulligan, regulations, capital access, public support

Summary: The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship convened to consider the nominations of Bill Briggs for Deputy Administrator of the SBA and Dr. Casey Mulligan for Chief Counsel for Advocacy. The discussions highlighted the critical role of the SBA in promoting small businesses, with emphasis on overcoming challenges posed by excessive regulations and the need for improved access to capital. Several committee members expressed their concerns over recent layoffs within the SBA and the closure of district offices, which they believe undermine support for small businesses across the nation. The committee meeting saw extensive dialogue about the implications of regulations on small business operations and how the nominees plan to address these issues if confirmed. Public support for the nominees was acknowledged through letters from various stakeholders who advocate for small business interests.

Transcript Highlights:

• Mayor, we'll start with you if you have an opening statement. Thank you. I do.
• Mayor, we'll start with you if you have an opening statement. Thank you. I do.
• Mayor, we'll start with you if you have an opening statement. Thank you. I do.
• Mayor, we'll start with you if you have an opening statement. Thank you. I do.
• Mayor, we'll start with you if you have an opening statement.

Summary: The Legislative Joint Auditing Committee approved the February 13 minutes and then heard several committee reports. The executive committee report noted that audit and special reports were scheduled for presentation, one requested report remained outstanding, and staff was asked to review selected Benton County circuit court case transfers. The committee also received and adopted reports from the counties and municipalities committee, the education committee, and the state agencies committee. Those reports covered delinquent private water and sewer audits, education audit reports, and state agency findings such as duplicate vendor payments, collateral issues, record-keeping problems, and vehicle log deficiencies. In each case, the committee voted to file or adopt the reports, with some reports deferred for follow-up or for officials to appear at a later meeting. A major portion of the meeting focused on the City of Pine Bluff’s 2024 financial audit. Auditors said the city received a clean opinion overall, but management letter findings identified serious issues in the mayor’s office, Parks and Recreation, and the finance department. The Parks and Recreation finding involved $179,629 in manual receipts that could not be traced to city deposits, missing receipts from several facilities, $48,415 in unallowable purchases, $13,000 in questionable purchases, altered invoices, unapproved vendors, and missing equipment; those matters were referred to the prosecuting attorney, attorney general, Governmental Bonding Board, and Arkansas State Police. The finance finding cited weak cash-receipting and bank-reconciliation procedures and late or missing deposits. City officials, including the mayor, finance director, and parks director, testified that the problems predated the current administration and said they had taken corrective steps. They described hiring a forensic audit firm, creating or updating standard operating procedures, improving receipting and deposit processes, adding procurement oversight, and moving Parks and Recreation to electronic or system-based receipting. Committee members questioned the officials about oversight, nonprofit relationships, and whether theft or system failures were to blame. After discussion, the committee voted to file the Pine Bluff report. The next meeting was announced for June 4-5, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then lastly, the Florida Open Financial Statement System, which is also called LOGERX.
• The third tool is the Florida Open Financial Statement System.
• The third tool is the Florida Open Financial Statement System, also known as Logger X.
• This particular website is for the local governments to report their financial statements.
• Financial statements, internal control, and compliance issues.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Auditing Committee met to receive updates on Transparency Florida and related transparency tools. The Governor’s Office and the Department of Financial Services described the Transparency Florida website, the state payment and contract systems, and the local-government financial reporting system (Logger X/XBRL), emphasizing public access, searchable payment and contract data, downloadable reports, and ongoing upgrades. Members asked whether school districts and the Department of Corrections are included in these systems; staff explained that state agencies like Corrections are covered through Transparency Florida, FACTS, and the state financial reports, while Logger X is for local governments. Committee staff reported that the Transparency Florida Act’s requirements have been met and noted that any new recommendations would need legislative action; members were invited to submit recommendations by October 30. The committee then reviewed repeated audit findings for local governments and educational entities. Staff explained the statutory process for “three-peat” findings: first requesting an updated written corrective-action status, then possibly requiring an appearance before the committee, and finally taking further action if findings remain uncorrected. Most entities were recommended for written updates, while the City of Daytona Beach was singled out for an in-person appearance because of a repeated finding involving unexpended building permit balances. Members also raised questions about specific entities, including McIntosh, White Springs, Pahokee, and the Fred R. Wilson Memorial Law Library special district, with staff explaining the nature of the findings and noting that some entities may warrant further review. The committee adopted a motion to accept staff’s recommendations and to send letters to entities with uncorrected audit findings in late-filed 2023-24 audit reports. It also approved a motion directing the Auditor General and OPPAGA to conduct the required audit of the Department of the Lottery for fiscal year 2025-26, with the Auditor General handling financial, internal control, and compliance work and OPPAGA preparing operational recommendations. The meeting concluded with notice that the next meeting was tentatively scheduled for November 3 at 3:30 p.m., followed by adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• We got a joint statement.
• We got a joint statement.
• We got a joint statement.
• We got a joint statement.
• We got a joint statement.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The subcommittee met on October 14, approved the minutes, and then took up a large group of staff-suggested amendments to multiple regulations. Those staff amendments were approved without objection and were described as technical changes needed to comply with KRS Chapter 13A and other governing law. The committee then moved out of order to consider Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure regulation 2011 KAR 9:270, which governs buprenorphine prescribing and related standards. Board representatives said the regulation has been updated over time since 2015 and that the current amendments are intended to streamline the rule, remove outdated federal references such as the X-waiver, narrow education requirements to addiction-related topics, and create exceptions for settings like emergency rooms and certain pain treatment situations. The agency amendment would also allow buprenorphine monoproduct for up to 30 days when a patient is transitioning from a full opioid agonist, and would add physicians certified in addiction medicine as eligible specialty consultants. Board officials said the regulation was developed through a two-year process with a work group, informal outreach to medical organizations, and multiple comment periods, and they argued the rule is working because overdose deaths have declined and provider numbers have increased. Several witnesses and committee members raised concerns that the regulation remains too restrictive. Senator Rocky Adams noted that major medical organizations had said the proposed language could restrict access and worsen overdose risk, and he questioned whether the committee was being asked to choose between conflicting expert views. Opponents, including a medical student, a recovery advocate, and Dr. Colleen Ryan of the Kentucky Society of Addiction Medicine, argued the rule is outdated, creates unnecessary barriers to buprenorphine treatment, and should be repealed or substantially revised to align with federal guidance and evidence-based care. They said rigid requirements can discourage treatment and that addiction should be treated like other chronic illnesses. No final vote on the medical licensure regulation is reflected in the transcript excerpt, and the discussion ended with the chair preparing to hear from additional opponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• I would like to make a statement at the beginning.
• Recognize Dean Thompson for a brief statement.
• Just a brief statement. The Chair recognizes Mr. Wolf for a brief statement. Thank you, Mr.
• May I follow that with a brief statement? Chair recognizes Mr. Rosenthal for a brief statement.
• To make a statement. The Chair recognizes Mr. Rosenthal to make a statement. Very good, thank you.

Keywords: 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Do you agree on that statement, Mr. Chairman? I think we held 6 hearings in the Senate.
• So are you saying that you agree with him or you don't agree with that statement?
• So you don't agree with that statement?
• Do you agree with that statement? I can only speak for the Senate.
• It should—that's a correct statement, Mr. Chairman.

Summary: The Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting met to lay out House Bill 4, the House companion to Senate Bill 4, and no public testimony was taken at this hearing. Senator King explained that HB 4 was based on the House’s revised congressional map, which he said made only minor changes from SB 4 while aiming to comply with law, improve Republican political performance, and keep districts compact. He noted changes affecting several districts, including moving Fort Bliss into CD 16, placing all of Navarro County into CD 6, and moving Liberty County into CD 9, and said counsel had reviewed the map and found it legally compliant. Several senators criticized the process and the substance of the map. Senators Alvarado, Miles, and Hinojosa objected that the House substitute had not been subject to a public hearing and argued that communities in Houston, El Paso, the Rio Grande Valley, and South Texas were being split or paired with unrelated areas. They also questioned the compactness of the districts and raised concerns about racial effects, including changes in Black voting-age population in CD 9 and CD 18. Senator King responded that the committee had already heard extensive testimony on redistricting, that the Senate was following its usual companion-bill process, and that he had not relied on racial data but on historical voting patterns and legal review. After debate, Senator Parker moved to report HB 4 favorably to the full Senate with the recommendation that it do pass and be ordered not printed. The committee approved the motion by a 5-3 vote, with one absent, and then recessed subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• For further clarity, this could be an event where someone makes a full statement about somebody.
• It's not a full statement, and they can tell us it is not a full statement if someone is legally charged
• What concerns me is that we are talking about taking down a false statement.
• There is a provision prior to the notice that I think is a gratuitous statement: a legislature finds
• It is a hanging statement. It doesn't say anything. What is the highest and best use?

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I'm proud to present House File 3940, which would require an environmental impact statement, or EIS
• In 2025, the state did 53 EAWs and only three environmental impact statements.
• three environmental impact statements. three environmental impact statements.
• An environmental impact statement is not about stopping projects.
• impact statement is not about<00:11:29.560> stopping<00:11:30.040> projects.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And then he further... what I took away, I heard a very clear statement that he was not intending to
• I do have another statement that I prepared that I would just like to read, so thank you, Chair, for
• Um, so I held the, so I chose not to give in your statement.
• Um, so I held the, so I chose not to give in your statement.
• Um, so I held the, so I chose not to give in your statement.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Public Safety met on Wednesday, April 2 at 11:05 a.m. and began with housekeeping instructions for Zoom testimony and meeting conduct. The first major item was House Resolution 43, HD1, which urged the City and County of Honolulu to work with stakeholders on an emergency access road on the West Coast. The acting chair proposed a substantial HD2 amendment to add Makakilo language, expanding the resolution to call for two emergency access roads—one on the Ewa coast and one in Makakilo—and to request community meetings and a timeline for an alternative Makakilo access road by early 2026. Testimony on the resolution was strongly supportive overall, with 14 written testimonies in favor and none opposed. The committee then debated whether the proposed HD2 was appropriate without prior concurrence from the original introducer or prior committee chair. Several members objected to the amendment process and said they would vote no because the amendment had not been posted in advance and lacked concurrence, while the acting chair argued the rules did not require concurrence for resolutions and that the amendment was needed to address Makakilo residents’ safety concerns. The discussion also included references to prior conversations with leadership and the Speaker about whether resolution titles could be amended. After debate, the committee first voted on the amended version of HR 43, but the recommendation was not adopted. The acting chair then moved to pass HR 43 HD1 as originally presented, without the new Makakilo amendments. That motion was adopted, with the committee voting to pass the resolution as is. The record notes that members supporting the original measure cited the written testimony and the need for a second access point on the West Coast, while others voted no because they viewed the Makakilo language as duplicative or preferred a separate measure. After HR 43, the committee moved on to HCR 9, and the acting chair indicated that the committee would need to take a reconsideration vote before proceeding to a final vote on that resolution.

Transcript Highlights:

• statement of completely and honestly. statement of completely and honestly.
• It's a simple statement, right?
• <02:11:05.199> It It's a simple statement, right? It It's a simple statement, right?
• <02:21:21.600> Would statement. This law would do that. Would statement.
• disagree with that statement. That being disagree with that statement.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 34, which would require parental consent for each new service provided to a student through the Medicaid to Schools program and require reports to legislative policy committees. Senator Ruth Ward said the bill was intended to increase transparency, protect parental involvement, and ensure continuity of care, especially for students with disabilities. She also noted a proposed amendment she received shortly before the hearing that would change the bill’s focus from a “new service” to a “new care plan.” Representatives from the New Hampshire Primary Care Association and Amoscake Health testified that they opposed the bill as written but would support it with the amendment. They explained that tying consent to individual diagnosis codes or services could be burdensome, could delay care, and could create compliance problems if a diagnosis changes during a visit. They said the amendment would better align consent with the overall care plan and avoid interrupting treatment mid-appointment. Committee members raised questions about how the bill would interact with IEPs, individualized health plans, homebound services, telehealth, billing, and whether the amendment would still require parental involvement after a care plan changes. The deputy Medicaid director from the Department of Health and Human Services testified that the amendment was more operationally feasible because Medicaid billing involves many ICD-10 codes that can change or overlap, and consent should be tied to the care plan rather than to each code. He said the current law already requires parental consent for participation in the Medicaid to Schools program and annual consent for billing, but the bill would make explicit consent for care-plan changes. No vote was taken during the portion of the hearing provided, and the committee appeared to continue discussion with DHHS after the testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Do you still stand by your statement of 'a lesser Black woman'?
• Thank you for that statement, but I want to revisit the question.
• I'd Senator, I've been very clear in my past public statements.
• Recognize, please, ma'am, if you would give us your statement, please.
• Is that your final statement? I didn't. I think we may have lost you again.

Summary: The committee on Higher Education Appropriations heard and favorably reported two bills: SB 1570, which revives the former Project Leo program to help locate missing persons with special needs through voluntary tracking devices and coordination with sheriff’s offices, and CS/SB 1376, which creates a grant program to support genetic counseling education in response to a statewide shortage of genetic counselors. Both bills drew supportive comments, with the genetic counseling bill also receiving public support from a university representative. The committee then took up a large slate of confirmations. It first approved a block of reappointments to various university and college boards of trustees, including institutions such as UWF, Broward College, Chipola College, FIU, Pasco-Hernando, Polk State, St. Petersburg College, Valencia, FAMU, FAU, UCF, FSU, New College, UNF, USF, and Broward College. It then heard from numerous new appointees and some requested reappointments, many of whom emphasized workforce training, nursing, military and veteran support, dual enrollment, and local economic development as priorities for their institutions. Several nominees highlighted their personal ties to the schools and communities they would serve, including appointees to Pensacola State, Polk State, St. Petersburg College, UNF, UWF, FIU, the College of the Florida Keys, Valencia College, and Chipola College. Committee members repeatedly asked about nursing NCLEX pass rates, workforce alignment, and institutional growth. One reappointment, Thomas Zachary Smith to the UWF board, was pulled from the block for separate questioning about his past public comments and his role in Project 2025; he said he would serve in his personal capacity and treat all students equally. The committee also separately heard from a Florida Poly reappointment, I. Shapiro, who was questioned about prior remarks regarding race and Supreme Court nominations, and from a New College reappointment, Mark Bowerlaine, who described campus improvements and enrollment growth. The meeting ended amid ongoing confirmation processing and separate votes on the remaining nominees.

Transcript Highlights:

• That being said, I know sometimes in the code we will have explanatory statements.
• Usually the statements will read something like, 'Subsection 13 is now subsection 14.'
• If we do more than that, sometimes it might appear to be a policy statement, which is what our office
• That being said, I know sometimes in the code we will have explanatory statements.
• You know, usually the statements will read something like, you know, subsection 13 is now subsection

Summary: The Statute Law Committee met on December 10, 2025, approved the June 10, 2025 minutes, and received a publications update noting that the 2025 RCW volumes and session laws are available, with sales continuing a gradual decline but generally tracking prior years. The committee also heard that the office remains fully staffed and financially stable, with projected year-end funds remaining and a healthy publications fund balance. A major discussion centered on a proposal from retired Judge Ann Levinson to make the code more reader-friendly when chapters are repealed and recodified, especially after the civil protection orders reform in E2 SHB 1320, which consolidated multiple protection order laws into new chapter 7.105 RCW. Levinson argued that current disposition-table language such as “repealed by” can be confusing to the public and may appear to signal legislative disapproval, and suggested adding a simple pointer to the new chapter. Code revisers explained their current practice, the limits of their editorial discretion, and the technical and policy concerns involved, while expressing support for some form of “see also” guidance and noting that hyperlinking session-law citations in disposition tables may also help readers find the new law. The committee also discussed office operations, including a planned move from the modular offices back into the rebuilt Pritchard building, expected in late 2026, with improved space, storage, and enclosed offices. Staff proposed changing regular Monday-through-Thursday office hours from 8 a.m.–8 p.m. to 8 a.m.–7 p.m., with exceptions for active work, client requests, and floor action; the proposal was supported by a chart showing that many evenings have no work after 7 p.m., though late nights would still occur during busy periods. The meeting ended with acknowledgments of retiring staff, including editor Barb Sage after 37 years of service, and a farewell to Vice Chair Sam Thompson, whose successor had just been selected.

Transcript Highlights:

• and I have not made it yet statement and I have not made it yet statement and I have not made it yet
• or will back out this second statement or will back out this second statement or will they come there
• the second concern on there is statement the second concern on there is statement the second concern
• that I'm saying cuz it's a statement that I'm saying cuz it's a statement that I'm saying cuz it's a
• is the simply this I just need statement is the simply this I just need statement is the simply this

Bills: SB 2

Keywords: 920, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The proposed bill provides for the inclusion of the financial impact statement on the petition form,
• Chair, and Senator Grall, I realize that we are reacting to your statement when you read what the bill
• Chair, and Senator Grall, I realize that we are reacting to your statement when you read what the bill
• Chair, and Senator Graal, I realize that we are reacting to your statement when you read what the bill
• The statement, and the statement can't be clear and has to be... ...be clear and not misleading.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections met to consider SPB 7016, a major bill revising Florida’s constitutional initiative petition process. Senator Grall presented it as a fraud-prevention and ballot-integrity measure that would add sponsor training, stricter circulator rules, more voter identification information, faster submission deadlines, notice to voters whose signatures are verified, and additional civil and criminal penalties. The committee also considered several amendments, including a $1 million bond requirement, font and page limits for petition forms, restrictions on incentive-based circulator pay, removal of a criminal-conviction prerequisite for certain fines, deposit and reimbursement procedures for supervisors of elections, invalidation of petitions gathered by ineligible circulators, mandatory circulator training, and a prohibition on public funds being used to advocate for or against constitutional amendments. All of the amendments were adopted, with some roll-call votes recorded and most passing on party-line or near party-line splits. The bill drew extensive questioning from senators, especially about the practical effects of the new requirements. Senator Polsky and Senator Rouson raised concerns about disenfranchising voters, burdening grassroots volunteers, the cost of bonds and deposits, the 10-day return deadline, and whether voters would be notified if a petition they signed was later invalidated. Grall said the measures were intended to protect the constitutionally significant initiative process, reduce fraud, and ensure sponsors—not taxpayers—bear administrative costs. Dave Ramba, speaking for supervisors of elections, supported the deposit and reimbursement concepts but warned that the bill’s implementation would be operationally difficult and that software vendors might not be ready for the changes by the effective date. He also said the process should avoid subsidizing petition drives with county taxpayer money. Public testimony was overwhelmingly opposed, with speakers from Common Cause Florida, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP Florida State Conference, Florida Rising, Equal Ground, Voices of Florida, and other civic groups arguing the bill would suppress direct democracy, criminalize volunteer activity, impose excessive costs, and create confusion and litigation risk. One speaker from the Florida Chamber of Commerce supported the bill, saying the initiative process should be protected from fraud and outside interests. During debate, Senator Polsky argued the Legislature has steadily made the initiative process harder after recent citizen-led amendments succeeded, while supporters framed the bill as a necessary integrity measure. The committee had not yet taken final action on the bill itself by the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Before turning to my formal opening statement, I want to let members know how we'll proceed this morning
• for his opening statement and then we'll swear in the witnesses and introduce them.
• You want an opening statement, too?
• But in your case, Mr Abbott, we're going to let you go ahead with an opening statement.
• statement? Yes. Thank you.

Transcript Highlights:

• something from your opening statement something from your opening statement and<00:24:54.040>
• That statement was false.
• That statement was false.
• That statement was false. That statement was false.
• They They said, "The statement.

Bills: HF3900, HF1849

Keywords: permanent school fund, school endowment fund, Minnesota constitutional amendment, school aid, public school funding, State Board of Investment, investment income, distributable amount, school districts, property taxes, income taxes, voter approval, ballot question, constitutional amendment 2026, education finance, fund perpetuity, purchasing power, trust lands, swamp lands, internal improvement land fund

Transcript Highlights:

• PRC is a credit that follows at the end of the statement. Continue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• Those are worked, and then those credits haven't shown up in the property tax statement yet.
• With your statement regarding the small operators and then also the majors, could you address...
• The school districts, they were... ...tax statements.
• That's on the property tax statement. If anybody's interested in staying for that as well.

Summary: The committee met to receive updates from the Tax Commissioner’s office on property tax relief programs and related compliance work. Commissioner Brian Croshys reviewed the Homestead Property Tax Credit, Disabled Veteran Credit, and Primary Residence Credit, noting that the Homestead program expanded significantly after HB 1158, that some households are “adjusting out” of eligibility as incomes rise, and that the committee may want to consider indexing income thresholds. Members asked for additional data on bracket breakdowns, possible costs of eliminating income limits for seniors, and how many households are zeroed out by the combined programs. Croshys also discussed the simpler administration of the disabled veteran credit, the growth in participation, and the heavy workload and auditing safeguards built into the new primary residence credit system. He said the department found no material compliance findings and that the program is designed to be digital-first, with county auditors and the Tax Commissioner’s office both involved in review and notification. The committee recessed for lunch and later reconvened, with the chair noting that more detailed PRC information would likely be available at a September meeting. Shelly Myers then presented the statewide property tax increase, or “zero growth,” report and the 2025 statistical report. She explained how county auditors report levy and valuation data, how increases and decreases are counted, and which jurisdictions showed the largest percentage changes in countywide, citywide, school district, and park district levies. In the statistical report, she summarized recent trends in assessed values: agricultural values remained relatively flat, while residential, commercial, and centrally assessed property values increased over the past five years. She also reviewed statewide tax levies by property class and clarified that centrally assessed growth figures were annual averages. Members discussed how shifts in land use and annexation can make it appear that tax burdens are moving from ag to residential/commercial property. Myers then summarized the interim study on the 3% levy limitation under HB 1176, saying most counties complied without budget changes, while some used hiring freezes, deferred purchases, or reserve funds; 23% of counties had to reduce levies, and the affected funds were mainly general, road and bridge, and weed control. She said 12 counties reported zero new growth in the data and that 35 counties reported not using all of their cap. The committee also received an oil tax presentation from Croshys on the stripper well extraction tax exemption. He outlined the number of active stripper wells, the production and revenue implications of the exemption, and projections for future biennia under different tax scenarios. He said the exemption represents substantial savings to operators but also corresponds to production tax revenue that would otherwise be collected, and he emphasized that future outcomes depend on oil prices, well counts, and technology such as CO2 enhanced oil recovery. Nathan Anderson of the Department of Mineral Resources briefly answered a question about why Red River wells have a different production threshold than Bakken wells, explaining it was tied to completion costs and lateral length. The committee then heard from Charlie Gorecki of the EERC, who presented an analysis of typical Bakken well decline curves and argued that most oil is produced before a well reaches stripper status, but that keeping wells open and investing in refracturing or other interventions can recover additional production. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting; the main actions were receiving reports, asking for follow-up data, and scheduling further discussion for a later meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• If we're going to talk about our environmental impact statement, we need to begin at the beginning.
• That's a fair statement, Chair Faye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
• It’s documented in the final supplemental environmental impact statement.
• It's documented in the final supplemental environmental impact statement.
• Senator, if I could make a statement. Sure, go ahead. Thank you.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We will have a five- to ten-minute opening statement from the nominee.
• Okay, thank you very much for your opening statement.
• Thank you very much for your opening statement.
• Then I apologize, I mean, for that statement.
• Thank you very much for that opening statement.

Summary: The Committee on Director Nominations met with four members present and approved the prior minutes without objection. Chair Jay Kaufman outlined the committee’s role in reviewing executive nominations and explained the hearing process for three nominees: Mary Foote for the Office of Economic Opportunity, Debbie Johnston for the Department of Health Services, and Chuck Bassett. Foote did not appear for her hearing, and members discussed her absence and alleged omissions in her disclosure materials, including prior service with Planned Parenthood-related organizations. The committee then moved to reject her nomination, and the motion passed 3-2, recommending that the full Senate reject Mary Foote. Debbie Johnston, nominee to lead the Department of Health Services, appeared and gave an opening statement describing her Arizona background, prior Senate staff work, and more than 20 years with the Arizona Hospital and Health Care Association. She said her priorities at ADHS include rebuilding trust in public health licensing, improving stakeholder engagement, standardizing rulemaking communication, addressing alleged religious discrimination and retaliation concerns in licensing, and using technology and AI to improve efficiency. In questioning, senators pressed her on her management style, conflict-of-interest safeguards given her prior industry role, enforcement priorities, budget pressures, behavioral health and assisted living oversight, and the department’s response to COVID-19. Johnston said she would follow statutes, recuse herself from enforcement matters involving former contacts, and resign if directed to carry out an unlawful policy. She also said the department does not regulate therapy itself, only facilities, and that it would rely on legal counsel regarding the governor’s conversion-therapy executive order and related federal civil-rights allegations. Several senators focused on public health trust and the department’s pandemic response, with Johnston acknowledging concerns about closures, data collection, and communication during COVID-19 while saying she would review past after-action materials and be better prepared in the future. Public testimony from stakeholders in aging services and health care strongly supported her confirmation, praising her accessibility, responsiveness, and collaborative approach. After testimony, the vice chair moved to recommend Johnston’s confirmation to the full Senate. The roll call was underway when the transcript ended, with several members voting aye and one member expressing reservations about her not reviewing the pandemic after-action report before another crisis occurs.