Transcript Highlights:

• c> about transparency, uniformity, and about transparency, uniformity, and making<00:04:01.840> sure
• actually do think um that transparency actually do think um that transparency is<00:27:05.760>
• opportunity to provide that transparency opportunity to provide that transparency um<00:29:16.240
• was made that this is a transparency was made that this is a transparency bill.<00:34:43.280>
• Joe Nash your commitment to transparency Joe Nash your commitment to transparency as<00:34:55.679

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 936, an author’s bill requiring cost-benefit analysis before agencies move forward with major rulemaking. Chair Nash moved the bill, the A2 author’s amendment was adopted, and the bill was then discussed as amended. The sponsor said the goal was not to eliminate rulemaking, but to require agencies to “show their work” by analyzing costs, benefits, and assumptions before rules are adopted. Supporters, including representatives from Americans for Prosperity and the Pacific Legal Foundation, argued the bill would improve transparency, uniformity, and accountability in rulemaking. They cited federal and other state models, especially Virginia, and said similar requirements already exist in several states. They also pointed to public support for requiring cost-benefit analysis and said the bill could help agencies avoid costly or poorly thought-out regulations, reduce litigation risk, and improve legislative oversight through notice to committees and publication of preliminary and final analyses. Several members raised concerns. Representative Luger Nikolai said cost-benefit analysis is already part of existing law through SONARs and that the legislature, not agencies, should be the first line of review; she also worried the bill would force dollar valuations on qualitative factors such as accessibility. Representative Craft said the bill could allow unelected officials to negate policy choices already made by the legislature if benefits do not exceed costs. Representative Fryberg said the bill appears to require full analysis even for minor housekeeping rules and may overemphasize dollar-based benefits. Chair Nash and supporters responded that the bill is meant to impose a uniform check on agencies and that many current rules already operate without sufficient legislative oversight. The discussion ended with members expressing both support and opposition, and a roll call was requested, though no final vote was included in the excerpt.

Bills: SB2256, SB2053, SB2090, SB2169, SB2245, SB2519, SB2765, SB3055, SB3102, SB3118, SB3144, SB3248, HCR43, HCR69, HCR188, HB2300, HB1605, HB2094, HB1166, HB1970, HB1969, HB2050, HB2165, HB2271, HB2338, HB2339, HB1972, HB2208, HB2310, HB1801, HB2498, HB2443, HB1976, HB2246, HB2319, HB1541, HB2606, HB2343, HB1853, HB1840, HB1785, HB1952, HB2551, HB2171, HB1661, HB1802, HB1663, HB1838, HB1960, HB1815, HB2599, HB1769, HB2315, HB1860, HB1891, HB2104, HB2158, HB389, HB1510, HB2089, HB2090, HB2099, HB1516, HB1548, HB1481, HB2452, HB2329, HB2275, HB1658, HB2272, HB2273, HB2276, HB2335, HB1656, HB2207, HB2289, HB1854, HB2581, HB20, HB2296, HB1707, HB2297, HB1890, HB2241, HB2474, HB1740, HB2472, HB1688, HB2345, HB2546, HB1574, HB1546, HB2218, HB1163, HB1523, HB2021, HB1524, HB2020

Keywords: Brother Joseph Dutton, Kalaupapa, historic recognition, observance, Hawaii history, salvage vehicles, vehicle title transfer, electronic signatures, insurance, administrative efficiency, child custody, mental health, evaluations, licensed counselors, family court, SB2245, Hawaii ethics, revolving door, state employee ethics, cooling-off period

Transcript Highlights:

• So there are these unregulated sources where transparency could help.
• If this bill was just about transparency, which is a question I have.
• I have a question regarding the transparency pieces in this bill. Mr.
• Maybe there's more transparency we can do; it sounds like.
• The transparency part is being opposed by the businesses that do this because the transparency kills

Bills: HF2543, HF2566, HF2627

Keywords: garnishment, wage garnishment, earnings levy, bank levy, execution, judgment debtor, judgment creditor, exemption notice, exempt property, bank account freeze, financial institution levy, employer disclosure, garnishee, writ of execution, debt collection, consumer debt, collections, bankruptcy exemptions, public benefits, means-tested benefits

Transcript Highlights:

• From ticket transparency to click-to-cancel rights and a junk fee ban.
• I'm concerned about the lack of transparency in that office for us to understand.
• Greatest intent, but implementation matters, and what we want is transparency across all government.
• But the transparency is what builds trust to all of our citizens and certainly the legislature when we
• But we also have to have the transparency as legislators and citizens to know that it was operated and

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Transparency builds faith in elections. Transparency builds faith in government.
• :01:09.520> financial transparency as to the financial transparency as to the financial interests
• Transparency builds faith in elections.
• disagree with the transparency argument. disagree with the transparency argument.
• > corruption,<01:00:43.680> and transparent, free from corruption, and transparent, free

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This statute is a critical tool that Americans use. to keep our government transparent and accountable
• The government must adapt to serve its citizens, especially when it comes to transparency.
• This administration must turn a new leaf and be more transparent than other administrations.
• Thereby, improving both transparency and agency efficiency.
• Americans to restore trust in public health agencies, we need transparency.

Transcript Highlights:

• House File 4077 offers transparency. House File 4077 offers transparency.
• because we know that public transparency because we know that public transparency is<00:10:36.160
• transparency. We have open meeting laws. transparency. We have open meeting laws.
• This is just pro-transparency.
• This is just pro-transparency. We right? This is just pro-transparency.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: Lawmakers held a bipartisan press availability on a bill to prohibit local governments and their officials from entering into non-disclosure agreements with private entities. Supporters said the measure is intended to protect transparency, public participation, and Minnesotans’ right to know about local decisions involving land use, public financing, and economic development, especially in cases involving data centers and other large projects. Representatives and senators from both parties described the bill as a response to examples in cities such as Rosemount, Farmington, Hermantown, North Mankato, Monticello, Pine Island, and others, where they said NDAs kept communities from learning about projects until decisions were effectively already made. The authors argued that the bill is not anti-development or limited to data centers, but instead prevents corporations from using private contracts to circumvent Minnesota’s open meeting and data practices laws. They said Chapter 13 already addresses trade secrets and other confidential information, and that the bill is meant to stop NDAs from creating secrecy around government decision-making. They also said they had heard little organized opposition so far, though they acknowledged questions about how the bill would affect early-stage business recruitment conversations and how local governments, especially smaller ones, would implement the change. Members also discussed the bill’s legislative path. They said it had previously received unanimous support in committee and was sent to the general register, then moved to the Judiciary Committee at the request of Chair Scott, who wanted a hearing. The authors said they did not believe the bill raised Chapter 13 issues requiring judiciary review, but agreed to the referral as a courtesy and said they were seeking a hearing. They reported that Senate consideration had previously ended in a tie vote, but said momentum was growing and expected stronger support this session. No vote was taken during the press event.

Transcript Highlights:

• Very, very transparent.
• So tho those those costs are already set and then of again, the transparency of the audit.
• But again, again, with the financial transference transparency that already exists.
• I feel based on the fact that there's no transparency.
• So it's not a fact of of reducing transparency. The fact is the transparency already exists.

Transcript Highlights:

• I very much believe in transparency and accountability.
• and actually would support increased transparency.
• And I believe in transparency. I think it's a good thing.
• And I believe in transparency. I think it's a good thing.
• I think it's important that lobbyists are transparent.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It was important to keep those records, and I'm all for transparency.
• police officers so I'm for transparency police officers so I'm for transparency but<00:14:41.000
• it's important to be transparent but it's important to be transparent but also<00:15:13.480>
• I'm a yes, and I'm certainly for transparency.
• And considering how long cases can be open, we're leaving people in transparency just hanging.

Keywords: This meeting will take place upon Recess of the Senate Chambers. There is not an exact time for this meeting therefore a placeholder time for the live stream has been set for 12:30PM est. Meeting Start: 00:03 Attendance Roll Call: 00:12 HB 321 (Rep. Johnson): 00:49 HB 340 (Rep. Hampton): 05:10 HB 520 (Rep. Fugate): 08:55 Adjournment: 32:26, 958, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on State and Local Government considered three bills. House Bill 321, sponsored by Rep. DJ Johnson and supported by the Kentucky League of Cities and the Kentucky Realtor Association, was amended by committee substitute and adopted unanimously. As amended, it extends training deadlines for planning commission and board of adjustment members and adds required training on how planning and zoning policies affect housing supply and accessibility. The committee substitute also limits appeals of final board of adjustment actions to persons or entities claiming injury who own real estate in the same zone as the affected property. The bill passed 8-0, and a title amendment was adopted. House Bill 340, sponsored by Rep. Tony Hampton with support from law enforcement and federal security representatives, would create a new section of KRS Chapter 13 to require criminal justice agencies to provide criminal history records for federal suitability or fitness background checks and allow a $25 fee for records requests reimbursed by the federal government. It also conforms juvenile records law to the new process. The committee approved the bill 9-0 with no opposition. House Bill 520, sponsored by Rep. Chris Fugate and backed by the Kentucky Sheriff's Association, Kentucky Police Chiefs Association, and Kentucky League of Cities, generated the most debate. The bill and committee substitute would exempt certain open police investigation records from disclosure under the Open Records Act when an agency says release could harm an investigation or reveal informants or witnesses. Several senators raised concerns that the “could” standard was too broad and could weaken transparency, while supporters argued it was needed to protect ongoing investigations, witnesses, and officers. The committee initially failed the bill 6-4, then after additional vote changes and discussion, reconsidered it and advanced the amended bill with favorable expression 6-4 to the floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• There’s no coverage except for maybe the pre-Medicare spouse?”
• “There is coverage for spouses even post-Medicare.” “Oh, okay.
• for spouses even post Medicare. coverage for spouses even post Medicare.
• And so it’s not—uh—you have to be able to get coverage in any of 50 different states.”
• in any any of 50 different coverage in any any of 50 different states.<03:54:03.840> Yeah.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee reviewed a handout comparing House Bill 2 to current retirement law and walked through the bill section by section with staff from the retirement system. The discussion focused on vesting, earnable compensation, average final compensation, compensation-over-base limits, special duty pay, normal retirement age, re-retirement, and maximum benefit rules for Group 2/Tier B members. Staff explained that some provisions would restore pre-2011 rules, including counting certain end-of-career payments such as unused sick and vacation time in earnable compensation and reducing the AFC averaging period from five years back to three. They also described how the bill would eliminate the current cap on compensation over base, which mainly affects overtime, and noted that the actuarial cost of the AFC-related changes is interrelated rather than easily broken out by feature. A separate discussion covered the special duty pay limitation, which currently applies to Tier A and would be removed under the governor’s bill for both Tier A and Tier B members after their vested buy date. Staff said the actuary estimated that removing the special duty limitation would increase costs by about $13.9 million. Members also asked about the practical difference between overtime and special duty, with staff explaining that special duty generally involves work for a private third party, often police detail work, while overtime depends more on staffing and scheduling. The committee also reviewed the normal retirement age changes for Tier B and the possibility that some members would need to work longer to reach the new vested buy date. Members raised concerns about an ambiguity in the bill that could allow already-retired Tier B members to return to work, then re-retire and claim the higher benefits, or allow vested deferred members to stop working and wait for the new vested buy date. Staff said the governor’s office did not intend to allow that result and requested clarifying language, noting that the bill as drafted does not expressly prohibit it. The committee also discussed part-time and seasonal work after retirement, with staff explaining that such work generally does not restore membership unless the person takes a full-time position requiring enrollment. Finally, the committee reviewed the maximum benefit provisions and noted that HB 2 in the current year does not change the maximum benefit date or include the 1.5% annual escalator that had been part of the 2023 proposal, making the current bill more costly than the earlier version.

Transcript Highlights:

• AB 699 provides a smart, transparent fix.
• AB699 provides a smart, transparent fix.
• And as we face this threat, transparency is the best way to educate voters.
• Californians want us to move toward transparency and fairness, not backward.
• Californians want us to move toward transparency and fairness, not backwards.

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on April 30, 2025, beginning as a subcommittee until a quorum was established. The committee first approved six bills on consent, including AB 950, AB 953, AB 1214, and three committee bills. It then heard several measures dealing with election administration, ballot transparency, and campaign finance, with most authors accepting committee amendments and several bills being held on call for absent members. AB 930 by Assembly Member Ward would extend the deadline for counting timely postmarked vote-by-mail ballots from three to seven days after Election Day and update recount procedures, including online posting of recount results and clearer rules for recount requests. The bill was supported by county election officials and passed out of committee with a due-pass recommendation, though it was initially held on call. AB 459 by Assembly Member DeMaio proposed allowing electronic signatures for initiatives, referenda, and recalls; the Secretary of State and labor groups opposed it over security, implementation, and cost concerns, and the committee ultimately rejected the bill after reconsideration. AB 699 by Assembly Member Stephanie would change how local tiered tax and bond measures are described on ballots by allowing more detail to be placed in the voter guide; housing, school, and local government groups supported it, while taxpayer and realtor groups opposed it as reducing ballot transparency. AB 1188, presented on behalf of Assembly Member Ortega, would list the top three funders supporting and opposing statewide initiatives and referenda directly on the ballot; transparency advocates and labor supported it, while county election officials and business groups raised concerns about ballot length and processing costs. Both AB 699 and AB 1188 passed out of committee with amendments and were held on call. The committee also heard AB 827 by Assembly Member Berman, which would standardize and extend the deadline for curing vote-by-mail signature problems, add a link to cure forms in ballot-tracking notifications, and make other changes to improve ballot curing. It drew no opposition in the hearing and passed with a due-pass recommendation. AB 351 by Assembly Member McKenna would raise the Levine Act contribution threshold for local officials to $1,500 and add CPI adjustments; supporters said it would reduce administrative burdens and reflect modern campaign finance realities, while good-government groups and the League of Women Voters opposed it as weakening anti-corruption protections. The committee initially failed AB 351, then granted reconsideration, but the transcript ends before a final disposition is clearly completed. Finally, AB 1079 by Assembly Member Farías would eliminate the automatic appellate stay in California Voting Rights Act and Fair Maps Act cases; it was supported as a way to prevent delayed remedies in voting rights cases, opposed by the City of Santa Monica over impacts on ongoing litigation, and passed with amendments. After taking up the held items, the committee recorded final votes on the bills, including passage of AB 930, AB 699, AB 1188, AB 827, and AB 1079, and rejection of AB 459.

Transcript Highlights:

• But some people will have to pay up to $270 just for their coverage under Medicaid because their incomes
• <00:13:52.800> for<00:13:53.040> their<00:13:53.360> their<00:13:53.839> coverage
• <00:13:55.040> uh<00:13:55.200> under just for their their coverage uh under just for
• their their coverage uh under Medicaid<00:13:56.720> uh<00:13:56.800> because<00:13:57.040

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 1596, which would raise New Hampshire’s cigarette excise tax from $1.78 per pack to about $2.80, using an inflation-based adjustment since the rate was last set in 2008. Representative Jerry Stringham, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure would keep New Hampshire competitive with neighboring states, generate revenue, and help offset other budget pressures. He also described the bill as repealing an income-based premium charge in Medicaid/CHIP-related programs and restoring cuts to the University System of New Hampshire, arguing that the combined package would still leave the state in a positive fiscal position. He said the tobacco tax increase would likely have some cessation effect but would remain low relative to other New England states, and he cited prior testimony from health groups supporting a larger increase. Members questioned the sponsor about how the new rate was calculated, the prior tobacco tax reduction and restoration, whether tobacco companies would absorb or pass on the tax, and the fiscal note’s estimates for Medicaid premium revenue and UNH funding. Stringham said he used Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation data, that the earlier 10-cent reduction did not produce the expected sales increase, and that the current bill would eliminate the premium charges now in the budget. He later clarified that the Department of Medicaid Services had updated the revenue estimate, but said the bill still showed a surplus overall. He also said the federal government already imposes a $1-per-pack tax and that New Hampshire would remain below neighboring states even after the increase. Two public witnesses testified in opposition to the tax increase. Anna Bettincourt, a tobacco category manager, argued that higher tobacco taxes would unfairly target smokers, reduce New Hampshire’s tax advantage, and likely shift purchases to other states or illicit markets rather than reduce use. She said tobacco companies generally do not lower prices and that Massachusetts’ flavor restrictions had not eliminated sales. In response to questions, she maintained that a smaller increase would still be harmful and that enforcement problems make bans ineffective. The sponsor and some members countered that smokers impose higher health costs and that tobacco taxes are a policy tool for both revenue and public health. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:42:10.440> within accountability and transparency within accountability and transparency
• <00:47:15.760> requiring for more transparency requiring for more transparency requiring authorizers
• should be held accountable transparent should be held accountable transparent and<00:48:27.280><
• All public schools should be transparent and held to high standards.
• <01:14:47.560> and around Charter School transparency and around Charter School transparency

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:11.080> but premium on government transparency but premium on government transparency
• You know, I believe in transparency.
• I think transparency in government is a really important thing.
• I think transparency in government is a really important thing.
• <01:24:22.080> and government so those transparency and government so those transparency and

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Next up, HB 1232, relative insurance coverage for telemedicine services. >> This was the ...
• We're on to HB 1232, relative to insurance coverage for telemedicine services.
• Those opposed, so moved unanimously. 1656, relative to insurance coverage for pelvic health therapy.
• 49.439> 1656 uh<03:50:53.040> relative<03:50:53.520> insurance<03:50:53.920> coverage
• <03:50:54.319> for uh relative insurance coverage for uh relative insurance coverage for pelvic

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I have health insurance coverage.
• I don't understand why I'm getting this bill when I have coverage,' and we have to walk them through
• that I would recommend, there are a portion of those individuals who will choose not to go with coverage
• That would not be impacted by this proposal, just to clarify that. in the uh consumer's coverage and
• so in the uh consumer's coverage and so cier<04:33:57.160> is<04:33:57.279> a<04:33:57.439

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Commerce Committee opened a public hearing on House Bill 310, sponsored by Representative Keith Ammon, which would create a study commission to develop a legal framework for stable tokens and tokenized real-world assets. Ammon described stable tokens as blockchain-based digital tokens backed by U.S. dollars or treasuries, and tokenized real-world assets as representations of ownership in items such as gold, real estate, or artwork. He said the bill is intended to help New Hampshire get ahead of emerging financial markets while waiting to see how federal legislation develops. Committee members asked about the purpose of the bill, the difference between this proposal and Bitcoin, whether state regulation could be preempted by federal law, and whether the commission could be balanced and avoid becoming a vehicle for fraud or money laundering. Ammon said the proposal is blockchain-agnostic, could apply to multiple networks, and is meant to regulate asset-backed tokens rather than create a state-issued coin. He emphasized that the state would not be guaranteeing the underlying assets, but would set rules requiring audits, proof of reserves, and honest representation of backing, with the Secretary of State’s securities office involved in oversight. Several members raised concerns about the risks of stablecoins, including money laundering, tax evasion, and possible harm to the dollar or confusion about whether the state was endorsing a new currency. Ammon responded that the bill would not undermine the dollar and argued that tokenization could actually expand demand for U.S. currency by making it easier to use globally. He also said the state would not be in the business of weighing assets or directly valuing them, only ensuring a valid audit trail and one-to-one backing. The discussion ended with general agreement that the subject is complex and that a commission could help develop future legislation, but no vote or final action was taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:45:26.359> and hesitation it ensures transparency and hesitation it ensures transparency
• <01:11:00.960> requirements reporting and transparency requirements reporting and transparency
• <01:15:32.480> and of full transparency and of full transparency and disclosure<01:15:34.280
• Chair, and I love this conversation of visibility, transparency.
• I love that visibility and transparency I love that visibility and transparency so<01:34:47.440>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So what is really needed is a lot of transparency around how these algorithms are put together, what
• So what is really needed is a lot of transparency around how these algorithms are put together, what
• So what is really needed is a lot of transparency around how these algorithms are put together, what
• So what is really needed is a lot of transparency around how these algorithms are put together, what
• So as long as it's transparent and we're working together in community to try to figure out the best

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Transparency strengthens trust, and trust is the foundation of a healthy democracy.
• Transparency matters, and voters deserve to know.
• Massachusetts has a proud history of leading on clean government and transparency reforms.
• Massachusetts has a proud history of leading on clean government and transparency reforms.
• Leading on clean government and transparency reforms.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The House and Senate Election Laws committees held a hearing focused on campaign finance and several local election-related bills. Office of Campaign and Political Finance Director William Campbell testified in support of H. 848 and S. 515, saying the campaign finance law needs modernization and highlighting proposals for stronger Super PAC disclosure, more timely reporting, improved security for campaign participants, and other reforms. He said the bills would help update a 50-year-old system to reflect legal, economic, and cultural changes. A major portion of the hearing concerned H. 868/S. 507, which would require earlier and more frequent reporting by ballot question committees. Witnesses from Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, and others argued that ballot campaigns now involve tens of millions of dollars, much of it raised during periods with no real-time disclosure, and that moving these committees into the depository system would improve transparency without burdening grassroots signature-gathering. The committee also heard support for H. 811 and H. 812, which would allow municipalities to create citizen-funded election programs and require identifying information on political text messages, as well as S. 525/H. 875, which would bar political spending by foreign-influenced corporations. The committee also heard testimony on S. 2605, a Canton home rule petition to move town elections from April to November. Canton residents, a select board member, and a poll worker said the change would increase turnout, better align local elections with the November voting cycle, and give newly elected officials more time to prepare for town meeting. Senator Rausch also testified in support of S. 530, requiring presidential primary candidates to disclose recent tax returns. The hearing ended with no votes taken and the committee adjourning, with a note that the next hearing was tentatively scheduled for January 13.