Transcript Highlights:

• on the other side of the house.
• The Florida Commission on Ethics, uh... Mr.
• complaint filed against you, or if you are filing an ethics complaint.
• You have an ethics complaint filed against you, or if you are filing an ethics complaint.
• of violating the Florida Code of Ethics, not a small thing.

Summary: The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee heard a presentation from Representative Esposito on a proposal to strengthen oversight of agency rulemaking under Chapter 120. The bill would require cost-benefit analysis at the front end and after implementation, create an eight-year sunset and review process for rules, and require express legislative authority for agency rulemaking. Members questioned the lack of concrete examples of burdensome rules, the effect on already slow rulemaking, the choice of an eight-year sunset, and the bill’s origin; Esposito said she was working with stakeholders and cited her chamber-of-commerce background and research with the Cicero Institute. No vote was taken on the bill itself. Staff then reported on legislatively mandated rulemaking from 2023 and 2024, noting that most required rules had been adopted, proposed, noticed, or scheduled, with a few agencies still outstanding. The Department of Financial Services explained a delayed notice of rule development for the MySafe Florida Home condominium pilot program as an oversight that has since been corrected, and the Department of Education said it did not proceed with rulemaking for the Fostering Prosperity grants because the program received no funding in the 2025 budget. The Department of Health described delayed rulemaking for the sickle cell disease and trait registry, saying the registry and opt-out forms were being implemented and that notices of rule development had now been filed. Members pressed the department on why rules took so long and discussed the need for statutory deadlines. The Department of Children and Families reported on two 2023 human-trafficking-related rules: signage requirements for residential treatment facilities and children’s safe homes, and a new certification process for adult safe homes. DCF said the signage rule is now moving forward and the adult safe home certification rule has been submitted for final review after workshops and stakeholder feedback. Senators questioned the lengthy timeline and the lack of oversight during the interim, while the chair emphasized the need for time-certain deadlines in legislation and for JAPAC oversight hearings. The committee also considered staff-proposed amendments to Chapter 120 addressing emergency rules pending legislative ratification and the process for initiating ratification, including a one-year limit and notice to JAPAC. After discussion, the committee voted to forward the proposed amendments to the Senate President and House Speaker. Finally, members discussed a proposed amendment to the administrative law judge appointment and retention process under Section 120.65. DOAH’s interim director opposed the change, saying ALJs and workers’ compensation judges have different functions and warning against shifting appointment power to cabinet officers whose agencies appear before DOAH. Members raised concerns about timeliness, consistency, and accountability in DOAH decisions. The committee voted to forward this proposal as well, with Senator Smith voting no on that motion.

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 10 deals with the excuse me.
• </c> version review of House Bill 10. version review of House Bill 10.
• And House Bill 139 as legislators.
• That section House Bill 139.
• <00:22:12.560><c> Bill</c><00:22:13.160><c> 607</c> House Bill 607 House Bill 607 to<00:22:14.600><c>

Committee: Senate State & Local Government

Transcript Highlights:

• We have Steven Zilkowski, and you represent the Florida Commission on Ethics.
• The Commission on Ethics believes that if witnesses to ethics violations are going to be the ones who
• file ethics complaints, they should be protected from retaliation.
• As far as implementation goes, having the Ethics Whistleblower Program with the Commission on Ethics
• I didn't come through the House like you did, and I appreciate any opportunity to debate.

Summary: The Committee on Governmental Oversight and Accountability took up three bills. First, it heard Senator Gates’s employee protection bill, which would create whistleblower-style protections for people who file ethics complaints based on personal knowledge, allowing the Ethics Commission to investigate retaliation and, if probable cause is found, letting the complainant seek administrative or civil relief. The Commission on Ethics supported the measure, saying it had long recommended such protections and that implementation costs would be low. The committee adopted the delete-all amendment and then reported the committee substitute for Senate Bill 92 favorably. Next, the committee considered Senate Bill 60 by Senator McLean, which reclassifies certain district assistant regional counsel supervisor positions in the Florida Retirement System to the senior management class, aligning them more closely with comparable attorney positions in public defender and state attorney offices. A late-file technical amendment aligning class codes with Florida statutes was adopted, and the bill was reported favorably. A representative from the regional council spoke in support. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 194 by Senator Martin, which would designate October 14 as Charlie Kirk Day of Remembrance. The sponsor argued the day would honor Kirk’s advocacy for free speech, debate, and civic engagement, and said it would not create a state holiday or require closures. The bill drew strong opposition from Senator Polsky and Senator Bracy Davis, who cited Kirk’s public comments on race, women, gun violence, and systemic discrimination and argued he was not a unifying figure worthy of state honor. Julie Keefe also spoke against the bill, while representatives from the Venezuelan American Republican Club and the Christian Family Coalition spoke in support. Despite the debate, the committee voted to report Senate Bill 194 favorably.

Transcript Highlights:

• Department of Housing and Community Department of Housing and Community Development.<00:09:07.280><c>
• </c> property tax credit for dwelling house property tax credit for dwelling house of<01:01:38.200><c
• </c> Housing Act. Housing Act.
• uh Joint Ethics Committee may uh Joint Ethics Committee may exempt<02:35:05.280><c> somebody.
• </c> conversation, it was an issue of ethics. conversation, it was an issue of ethics.

Transcript Highlights:

• Will the House please come to order? Will the House please come to order?
• </c> welcome him back to the State House. welcome him back to the State House.
• on General and Housing?
• </c> General and Housing? General and Housing?
• </c> Vermont State House. Vermont State House.

Transcript Highlights:

• Next, House Bill 411, relating to ethics administrative fines.
• House Bill 371. We are in support of House Bill 371.
• Next, House Bill 411, relating to ethics administrative fines, establishing uniform provisions for assessment
• </c><01:56:40.199><c> 411</c> on House Bill 411 House Bill 411 on House Bill 411 House Bill 411 recommendation
• House Bill 662.

Committee: House Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Summary: The House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs held its first hearing of the 33rd Legislature and heard several measures, beginning with HB 131, which would allow agencies to disclose government records to researchers for certain purposes and direct the Office of Information Practices to adopt uniform rules. OIP supported the bill, saying it would help researchers access government records, while DLNR questioned whether the bill was necessary, raised concerns about costs and exemptions, and suggested a definition change regarding media. The Public First Law Center and other supporters said the bill would not remove existing exemptions or create new disclosure requirements, but would simply authorize rulemaking to create a clearer process for research access. Common Cause Hawaiʻi raised concern about including news media in the measure. The chair emphasized that the rulemaking process would allow agencies and the public to work through details, and the committee moved on without a recorded vote in the transcript. The committee then heard HB 411, which would create uniform administrative penalty procedures under the state ethics code and lobbyist law, and HB 412, which would expand lobbying definitions to cover certain communications with high-level executive officials about procurement and make some contracts voidable if awarded through unethical lobbying. The Ethics Commission supported HB 411 as an efficiency measure that would streamline the charge process without changing substantive rights, while HB 412 was described as a narrow transparency measure modeled on other states. The State Procurement Office warned that voiding contracts could cause delays, warranty issues, third-party complications, and higher reprocurement costs. The Ethics Commission responded that any contract revocation would be at the Attorney General’s discretion and likely reserved for egregious cases, and that the threat of voiding a contract would help deter noncompliance. The committee also heard HB 413, which clarifies that lobbyist campaign contribution prohibitions apply during periods when both houses of the Legislature are in session; the Ethics Commission and Campaign Spending Commission both supported the bill and the Ethics Commission requested amendments to clarify jurisdiction between state and county lobbyist enforcement. Finally, the committee took up HB 149, which would require domestic and foreign corporations to report independent expenditures and political contributions to shareholders. The only testimony noted in the transcript was written comments from Matson, which said the requirement would be expensive and cumbersome and that the information is already publicly available through existing campaign finance reporting websites. No votes or final committee actions on the bills were recorded in the provided transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• That’s my ethical way of thinking is that we all are adults.
• private sector, ethics enforcement, is not a good public policy.
• I am worried about the structure of outsourcing ethics and about some of the implications.
• But I do want to highlight that, again, ethics is incredibly important.
• But I do want to highlight that, again, ethics is incredibly important.

Committee: Senate Education

Summary: The Senate Education Committee heard several bills focused on school nutrition, campus safety, college affordability, and UC contracting ethics. SB 1058 by Senator McNerney would remove price as the primary factor in school nutrition procurement, allowing districts more flexibility to prioritize meal quality, cultural appropriateness, local sourcing, and sustainability. Support came from school nutrition officials, education agencies, and school business groups; there was no opposition. Members raised questions about vendor selection and safeguards against favoritism, and the bill was ultimately moved forward on a due pass motion. SB 1140 by Senator Ashby, sponsored by the California Federation of Teachers, would require school safety plans to address access control during construction, maintenance, and repair projects by limiting unattended entry points such as open doors and gates. Supporters included Brady Campaign, Moms Demand Action, school employees, labor groups, and Prism. Members discussed how the bill would apply to both new construction and ongoing maintenance, and the measure advanced on a due pass motion. SB 959 was taken up on consent and also moved forward. SB 1006 by Senator Padilla would raise the Cal Grant B Access Award to a new minimum and tie future increases to inflation, with related supplemental awards for student parents and former foster youth also indexed. Support came from higher education advocates, CSU, student groups, and public advocacy organizations, with testimony from a Sac State student describing housing, transportation, and food insecurity. Members generally supported the bill, though questions were raised about fiscal impact; the author estimated about $21 million in first-year costs. The bill passed the committee on a due pass motion. SB 1141 by Senator Wahab would bar businesses from contracting with the University of California if a UC executive is paid by, or has been paid by, that business within the prior year, aiming to address conflicts of interest in UC contracting. AFSCME and UC workers supported the bill, citing examples of executives serving on corporate boards while their institutions contract with those companies. UC and business groups opposed it, arguing it was overly broad, could capture ordinary dividends or unpaid advisory roles, and could disrupt essential contracts and operations. After extensive debate over existing conflict-of-interest laws and whether the bill would create practical problems, the committee approved SB 1141 on a 4-3 vote and then reported the remaining bills out 7-0 as calls were lifted, concluding the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm here today to testify in support of House Bill 366.
• House Bill 366 is left. pending. House Bill 912 and recognize Speaker Moody to explain the bill.
• House Bill 912. House Bill 912 is left pending. Thank you.
• Thank you. out House Bill 470.
• House Bill 470. He's left pending.

Bills: HB 13 , HB143 , HB144 , HB145 , HB366 , HB470 , HB805 , HB912 , HB13 , HB143 , HB144 , HB145

Committee: House State Affairs

Keywords: emergency communication, infrastructure, first responders, grant program, interoperability, Texas Interoperability Council, local governments, HB 143, Texas Railroad Commission, Public Utility Commission of Texas, Natural Resources Code, oil and gas, well site, surface facility, electrical power line, National Electrical Code, NEC, electrical safety, utility disconnect, service disconnection

Transcript Highlights:

• Seconded it. of u to pass on House Bill 1574 FN. of u to pass on House Bill 1574 FN.
• The code of ethics is not. actionable. The code of ethics is not.
• </c><01:17:54.800><c> Bill</c> up House Bill up House Bill 1792.
• </c> opposition to House Bill 1792. opposition to House Bill 1792.
• </c> opposition to House Bill 1792. opposition to House Bill 1792.

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• Carrie from Florida Commission on Ethics waves in support. Thank you for being here.
• Lopez: House Bill 603 makes an update to Florida ethics laws by recognizing foster families as family
• Lopez: foster children to the definition of relative for ethics purposes.
• Stillman from the Commission on Ethics waving in support.
• Main amendments must be sent to House Bill Drafting at 3:00 PM and for filing at 4:00 PM.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's my ethical way of thinking is that we all are adults.
• private sector, ethics enforcement, is not a good public policy.
• I am worried about the structure of the outsourcing ethics and about some of the implications.
• But I do want to highlight that, again, ethics is incredibly important.
• But I do want to highlight that, again, ethics is incredibly important.

Summary: The Senate Education Committee heard several bills related to school nutrition, campus safety, college financial aid, and UC contracting ethics. SB 1058 by Senator McNerney would remove price as the primary factor in school nutrition procurement grants, allowing districts more flexibility to prioritize quality, local sourcing, cultural responsiveness, and healthier meals. Supporters from school nutrition and education groups said it would help districts better serve students and local farmers without increasing state costs. After questions about vendor selection and safeguards against favoritism, the bill was moved do pass and later approved 7-0. SB 1140 by Senator Ashby, sponsored by the California Federation of Teachers, would require school safety plans to address access control during construction, maintenance, and repair projects. Supporters said the bill closes a gap that can leave gates or doors unsecured and could help prevent unauthorized access to campuses. There was no opposition, and the committee approved the bill unanimously. SB 959 was also taken up on consent and passed. SB 1006 by Senator Padilla would raise the Cal Grant B Access Award and tie future increases to inflation using the California Consumer Price Index. Supporters said the current award has lost most of its value and does not cover basic needs like housing, food, transportation, and books, affecting hundreds of thousands of students. Members discussed the fiscal impact and the need to keep aid aligned with rising costs; the bill was moved forward and later approved 7-0. SB 1141 by Senator Wahab would bar UC contracts with businesses that pay UC executives or where executives serve in paid roles, aiming to prevent conflicts of interest. UC and the Chamber of Commerce opposed the bill as too broad and potentially disruptive to operations, while supporters argued existing rules are insufficient because many contracting decisions happen outside public view. After extended debate over recusal, transparency, and the scope of the restrictions, the committee passed the bill 4-2 and then finalized all bills on the agenda before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• I would ask that you send House Bill 515 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
• Chairman, I move that we introduce House Bill 515 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
• So before us is House Bill 515... ...motion.
• The second area that we've increased our focus on is educator ethics.
• We place emphasis on ethics, data privacy, bias, and professional judgment.

Committee: House Education

Transcript Highlights:

• pass on the House.
• pass on the House.
• pass on the House.
• pass on the House.
• Same should pass on the House<01:40:43.360><c> floor.</c> House floor. House floor.

Summary: The Health Services Committee met with a quorum and took up House Bill 414 with a committee substitute. The bill, described by sponsors and supporters as a continuation of prior maternal-health legislation, was framed as a clarification of medical standards and an effort to improve care for women and families facing complicated pregnancies. Representative Tate, Representative Nemes, Adair Wushar of Kentucky Right to Life, and Dr. Jeff Goldberg of ACOG Kentucky all testified in support, saying the substitute was developed collaboratively to reduce confusion in the law and help physicians provide evidence-based care without fear of criminal penalties. Supporters said the committee substitute was intended to define what is not an abortion under Kentucky law and to spell out medical treatments for conditions such as miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, molar pregnancy, sepsis, hemorrhage, preeclampsia, premature rupture of membranes, and fetal demise. Dr. Goldberg said current statutes contain significant ambiguity and have created unintended barriers to treating pregnancy complications, including emergency situations, and he gave examples of patients who were delayed or harmed because physicians were uncertain about what the law allowed. Representative Nemes said the measure was the result of unusual cooperation among groups that do not usually agree and described it as a first step toward fixing a discrete problem. Representative Wilner raised concerns that the language could effectively require a patient to be in severe distress before treatment is clearly permitted and that it was too prescriptive about how physicians should manage miscarriages. In response, Dr. Goldberg and the sponsors said the substitute was not perfect, was meant as a short-term solution, and was designed to give doctors more confidence in providing routine, medically necessary care for pregnancy complications. The transcript indicates the committee substitute was adopted, but no final vote on the bill itself is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, I do think that the previous Ethics Board missed it in one regard: We operate on a two-year
• And I also think we're, you know, I don't know that I would have agreed with the previous Ethics Board
• Okay, so it's an ethics alert is what we're leaning toward.
• So I guess what I'm saying is I don't agree maybe with the previous ethics boards on this.
• I mean, yes, I guess it should be left up to the ethics board because you can’t say, you know, ethics

Summary: The meeting focused on ethics guidance for legislators’ official newsletters and social media posts about a major tax bill that has since become a ballot measure. Members and staff debated whether existing board guidance, which allowed comments on legislation previously before the legislature, should also apply to social media and to the current biennium rather than only the immediately preceding session. Several members argued that legislators should be able to state how they voted on the bill and discuss it as part of their legislative record, while others stressed that using state resources to advocate for or against a ballot measure is prohibited and that posts could become an indirect appeal to voters. The discussion also covered whether there should be a bright-line cutoff tied to the primary election date, after which official communications should stop discussing the bill if it is now a ballot measure. Staff and members raised concerns about tone, tenor, and proximity to the election, and whether official social media, caucus communications, and newsletters should be treated differently. One motion to extend the prior rule to the full biennium and apply it to social media failed. A second motion then passed establishing the primary date as a date certain for monitoring these discussions, with the understanding that official communications should be more limited after that point. Members noted that personal social media and campaign resources remain separate from official legislative resources. The meeting then moved toward adjournment of the public portion, with no public testimony offered, before a brief break and executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's one piece of ethics.
• So that's one piece of ethics.
• So that's one piece of ethics.
• So that's one piece of ethics.
• So that's one piece of ethics.

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• President, there's a message. from the House. Admit the messenger. Mr.
• President, I'm directed by the House to inform the Senate that the House has taken the following action
• stock of affordable housing across the state of Texas, especially in our fast-growing metro areas.
• movement, and I would even throw in the international affordable housing movement.
• Back then, I was a state house member, so he'd say, "I'm going to be the state representative."

Bills: HJR98 , HJR99 , HB29 , HB136 , HB142 , HB166 , HB353 , HB1399 , HB2000 , SJR59 , SCR19 , SB128 , SB261 , SB317 , SB383 , SB393 , SB397 , SB466 , SB517 , SB571 , SB612 , SB705 , SB715 , SB731 , SB748 , SB801 , SB867 , SB913 , SB945 , SB946 , SB986 , SB1013 , SB1071 , SB1086 , SB1087 , SB1117 , SB1181 , SB1250 , SB1263 , SB1285 , SB1444 , SB1483 , SB1528 , SB1553 , SB1556 , SB1608 , SB1723 , SB1858 , SB1946 , SB1957 , SB1986 , SB1999 , SB2043 , SB2056 , SB2082 , SB2105 , SB2133 , SB2138 , SB2177 , SB2203 , SB2221 , SB2311 , SB2334 , SB2337 , SB2340 , SB2373 , SB2417 , SB2446 , SB2452 , SB2477 , SB2532 , SB2565 , SB2587 , SB2615 , SB2622 , SB2633 , SB2637 , SB2681 , SB2713 , SB2717 , SB2781 , SB2782 , SB2835 , SB2841 , SB2857 , SB2891 , SB2943 , SB2994 , SB2995 , SB3016 , SB3047 , SB3057 , SB3059 , SJR3 , SB5 , SB72 , SB509 , SB616 , SB963 , SB985 , SB1143 , SB1172 , SB1267 , SB1271 , SB1273 , SB1759 , SB1786 , SB2361 , SB1025 , SB1080 , SB1245 , SB1355 , SB1422 , SB1 , SB260 , SB1506 , SB1637 , HJR98 , HJR99 , HJR2 , HJR1 , HB 1109 , HB1392 , HB22 , HB3093 , HB517 , HB 1130 , HB142 , HB1689 , HB2018 , HB136 , HB2884 , HB1393 , HB2730 , HB1399 , HB 1244 , HB467 , HB331 , HB2559 , HB29 , HB26 , HB166 , HB353 , HB2000 , HB2756 , HB3248 , HB3513 , HB3204 , HB3135 , HB3012 , HB2763 , HB2523 , HB2457 , HB2415 , HB2198 , HB2143 , HB1708 , HB1672 , HB767 , HB1327 , HB2723 , HB451 , HB140 , HB 109 , HB3096 , HCR6 , HCR12 , HCR29 , HCR50 , HCR55 , HCR56 , HCR58 , HCR70 , HCR71 , HCR74 , HCR78 , HCR80 , HCR107 , HCR116 , HCR117 , SJR36 , SJR50 , SJR63 , SJR59 , SCR12 , SCR39 , SCR48 , SCR19 , SB2023 , SB1957 , SB2615 , SB2138 , SB3016 , SB1999 , SB62 , SB666 , SB847 , SB284 , SB854 , SB1073 , SB810 , SB1505 , SB583 , SB507 , SB1434 , SB1772 , SB2016 , SB1163 , SB1122 , SB731 , SB397 , SB508 , SB1436 , SB287 , SB261 , SB1882 , SB393 , SB1791 , SB209 , SB2429 , SB511 , SB2309 , SB510 , SB1085 , SB1975 , SB2717 , SB1262 , SB636 , SB2056 , SB884 , SB517 , SB1200 , SB1845 , SB2681 , SB2458 , SB801 , SB3014 , SB3013 , SB758 , SB1013 , SB2797 , SB2076 , SB2876 , SB715 , SB1640 , SB2538 , SB1449 , SB1181 , SB1359 , SB410 , SB1234 , SB2926 , SB2972 , SB2841 , SB1856 , SB1528 , SB1373 , SB672 , SB2891 , SB1854 , SB317 , SB2539 , SB2532 , SB1250 , SB2082 , SB2203 , SB1285 , SB1454 , SB2520 , SB1237 , SB1586 , SB2819 , SB629 , SB2342 , SB2903 , SB2477 , SB3029 , SB375 , SB777 , SB2367 , SB2703 , SB2608 , SB2965 , SB2521 , SB2165 , SB2501 , SB2452 , SB2835 , SB1602 , SB1704 , SB1723 , SB1858 , SB1946 , SB2009 , SB2177 , SB2460 , SB2785 , SB2373 , SB867 , SB1608 , SB640 , SB1698 , SB383 , SB705 , SB748 , SB1117 , SB2340 , SB2680 , SB2994 , SB2747 , SB1950 , SB913 , SB1071 , SB1086 , SB1087 , SB1483 , SB1444 , SB1553 , SB1556 , SB1703 , SB2133 , SB2297 , SB2298 , SB2622 , SB2955 , SB3059 , SB2782 , SB2781 , SB2637 , SB2633 , SB2337 , SB2334 , SB1861 , SB2043 , SB1367 , SB946 , SB945 , SB2857 , SB128 , SB571 , SB1263 , SB3058 , SB612 , SB2221 , SB2587 , SB2044 , SB2363 , SB2713 , SB2311 , SB1986 , SB2565 , SB2943 , SB1888 , SB2417 , SB3048 , SB3052 , SB3053 , SB3036 , SB3057 , SB3056 , SB3043 , SB3037 , SB3050 , SB3063 , SB3047 , SB3035 , SB2446 , SB466 , SB2611 , SB2794 , SB2105 , SB2017 , SB1790 , SB1778 , SB1730 , SB2995 , SB2847 , SB205 , SB2619 , SB1903 , SB203 , SB3061 , SB1581 , SB2600 , SB2799 , SB2790 , SB2688 , SB2515 , SB1230 , SB876 , SB2522 , SB2639 , SB2137 , SB2519 , SB2403 , SB2459 , SB3051 , SB2655 , SB2251 , SB2764 , SB2878 , SB1884 , SB111 , SB582 , SB2617 , SB1835 , SB2751 , SB2959 , HB206 , HB 1238 , HB 1089 , HB2890 , HB9 , HB2081 , HB4215 , HB2970 , SB2063 , SB1400 , SB2058 , SB2260 , SB2928 , SB1310

Keywords: Article V, federal government, fiscal restraints, constitutional amendment, term limits, animal feed, tax exemption, ad valorem taxation, retail, water audit, water loss, water loss mitigation plan, municipally owned utility, municipal utility, water conservation, Texas Water Development Board, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water leakage, leak detection

Transcript Highlights:

• ethics process now because, as I understand it's two things.
• I don't see other ones that give—oh, no, for the State Ethics Commission, we did too.
• I don't see other ones that give, oh, no, for the State Ethics Commission, we did too.
• the education budget, would pass out of the House first.
• would pass out of the House first.

Bills: SB104 , SJR3 , SM3 , SB104 , SJR3 , SM3

Committees: Senate Senate Rules , Senate House Rules & Order Of Business

Keywords: wildlife commission, removal procedures, malfeasance, appointed officials, governance, education reform, public education, state board of education, superintendent, chartering authority, constitutional amendment, policy setting, insects, insect workshop, insect identification, ecology, monitoring, management, pollinators, pollination

Transcript Highlights:

• However, I do think the previous Ethics Board missed one regard: we operate on a two-year cycle.
• And I also think we're, you know, I don't know that I would have agreed with the previous Ethics Board
• Okay, so it's an ethics alert is what we're leaning toward.
• So I guess what I'm saying is I don't agree maybe with the previous ethics boards on this.
• , ethics advisors, ethicizers, thank you.

Summary: The meeting focused on whether legislators and legislative staff may use official resources, including newsletters and social media, to comment on a bill that has since become a ballot measure. Members discussed older ethics guidance allowing comments on legislation previously before the legislature, but questioned whether that rule still applies to modern social media posts and to ballot measures, especially when the language is strong or could be seen as an indirect appeal to voters. Several members argued that once a bill becomes a ballot measure, using state resources to advocate for or against it is prohibited, while others emphasized the importance of allowing officials to explain their votes and speak to their legislative record. The group debated possible guardrails, including whether comments should be limited to the bill itself, whether tone and timing should matter, and whether the rule should apply only to members not subject to election-year restrictions. One motion proposed extending the prior ethics guidance from the immediately preceding legislative session to the full biennium and applying it to social media, but that motion failed. Members then shifted toward a brighter-line approach tied to the primary election date, with discussion that after the primary officials should not use state resources to talk about a bill that became a ballot measure or is subject to ballot challenge. A second motion to use the primary date as the cutoff for monitoring these discussions was made, seconded, and passed. The chair then noted that officials are still free to speak on personal or campaign accounts, and to respond to questions, but the board’s guidance would help distinguish permissible official communications from campaign-like advocacy. The meeting then moved toward adjournment of the public portion, with no public testimony offered.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> be guided by the highest ethical be guided by the highest ethical standards,<00:01:48.720><c> ensuring
• Uh, the Ethics Committee will be meeting at 2 p.m. today. >> 2 p.m. for ethics. >> Yes.
• &gt;&gt; 2 p.m. for ethics. 2 p.m. for ethics. Uh &gt;&gt; 2 p.m. for ethics. 2 p.m. for ethics.
• I know I you to come over to the house.
• Um but the house know not everybody.

Summary: The Maryland Senate convened on January 15 with a prayer offered by Reverend Sheridan Almond of St. Paul’s United Methodist Church in Kensington, introduced as a guest of the senator from the 18th district. Her remarks were journalized without objection. The chamber also welcomed several guests, including Carter Pry, a recent Crofton High School graduate interested in cybersecurity and AI, interns Isabelle War and Daniel Mora, and the Catonsville Middle School Student Council and adviser Katie Tucci. Members also recognized the day’s pages and thanked them for their service. The only bill read at the desk was Senate Bill 232, by Senator Salling, concerning state procurement preferences for historically underutilized business zone businesses; it was referred to the appropriate standing committee. Committee announcements followed, with Finance, Education, Energy, and the Environment, Judicial Proceedings, and Ethics all scheduling organizational meetings and related briefings later that day. Additional announcements noted Baltimore City and Baltimore County delegation meetings, a Fire EMS Coalition meeting, and Cecil Day events in Annapolis. A senator from Montgomery County highlighted an art exhibit, Art in Full Spectrum, on the fourth floor of the House office building, featuring artists with disabilities from many districts and a future reception. The Senate then confirmed a quorum of 45 members and, on motion of the majority leader, adjourned pro forma until Friday, January 16 at 11:00 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• The State Investment Board lacks any framework for making ethical investment decisions.
• Senate Bill 6109 affirms that we can invest both wisely and ethically.
• They'd be more ethical and not just picking companies because they're prudent.
• And I think that this bill should pass and that we should apply ethical decisions.
• I'm glad, I think. ...should pass and that we should apply ethical decisions.

Summary: The committee began with a work session from the State Investment Board, where staff described the board’s structure, $230 billion in assets under management, and its mandate to maximize returns at a prudent level of risk for pension and other state funds. They reviewed long-term performance, noting strong historical returns and explaining that the board generally invests public equities passively through low-cost index funds. Members also discussed sustainability practices, including ESG integration, proxy voting, climate and DEI blueprints, and the board’s view that divestment or asset-class restrictions can reduce returns and increase costs. Senators asked about deferred compensation, legislative influence over investment policy, and digital assets; staff said the board is slow-moving and that any major change would be studied carefully. The public hearing then focused on SB 5439, which would prohibit new thermal coal investments beginning in 2026 and require full divestment by 2030, with limited exceptions. Supporters argued coal is a poor long-term investment and a major climate and health risk, and several said the bill still gives the board flexibility to retain holdings in companies transitioning to clean energy. The committee also heard testimony on SB 6109, which would bar investments in private detention facilities and require divestment by 2030; supporters said state money should not profit from immigrant detention, while staff confirmed the board currently holds a small investment in Geo Group. SB 6304 would require responsible investment principles for the State Investment Board, including consideration of human rights, environmental degradation, corruption, and related risks, along with proxy voting guidelines and annual reporting. Testimony in favor emphasized ethical investing, climate risk, and avoiding complicity in human rights abuses, while board staff had earlier said they view such decisions through an investment-risk lens rather than a values-based lens. The committee also heard Substitute SB 5945, which would exclude most offenses committed before age 18 from counting as strikes under the state’s persistent offender law and would allow retroactive resentencing for affected people, with exceptions for first- and second-degree murder and serious sex offenses. Staff said the substitute would likely affect fewer cases than the original bill, with estimates ranging from about 10 to 24 resentencings. Public defense, prosecutors, and sheriffs’ representatives raised concerns about workload, victim impacts, and retroactive application, while supporters and pro bono providers said they were prepared to help with resentencing and reentry support. No votes were taken during the hearing.