Transcript Highlights:

• within 48 hours, or the ITA evaluation was completed and the DCR did not detain the individual.
• , and how we are going to ensure that we continue to do investigations in an unbiased, thorough, competent
• We need the state to take responsibility for complex, high-cost cases like those involving competency
• We need the state to take responsibility for complex, high-cost cases like those involving competency
• restoration or serious violent felonies. high-cost cases like those involving competency restoration

Summary: The committee received agency updates on several behavioral health and justice programs. The Health Care Authority reported that assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) has expanded from two counties to eight, with a ninth expected in December, and described AOT as a court-ordered, least-restrictive treatment model that depends on close coordination among courts, treatment providers, and local officials. The agency also reviewed Joel’s Law, which lets family members, guardians, conservators, or tribes petition for an initial involuntary detention when they disagree with a designated crisis responder’s decision. Judges Ferreira and Larson said petition use has increased significantly statewide and in Snohomish County, but many cases do not proceed beyond the initial detention stage; they also noted family frustration, disjointed processes, and bed shortages as ongoing issues. Committee members asked about expansion criteria, the law’s effectiveness, and how the system fits together with other mental health interventions. The Attorney General’s Office presented on the hate crimes and bias incidents hotline created by SB 5427. The hotline began a pilot in King, Clark, and Spokane counties on July 1, 2025, with a statewide launch planned for 2027. Officials said the advisory committee helped shape the referral process, intake questions, outreach materials, and public branding. In the first five months, the hotline received 301 reports, with roughly 45% from King County and about 38% from outside the pilot counties; 42% requested follow-up, and only about a quarter of those wanted law enforcement referral. Testimony emphasized that the hotline is non-emergency, anonymous if desired, and focused on referrals rather than investigation. Members asked about why callers do not seek law enforcement involvement, how the hotline compares with Oregon’s launch, and what kinds of incidents are being reported. The Office of Independent Investigations reported progress on its work investigating police deadly force fatalities. Director Roger Rogoff said the agency has grown to 66 employees, including 31 investigators, and has completed six fatality investigations, with two public final reports posted. He said the office now operates in Region 1 and plans to expand statewide as staffing allows, with a future east-side expansion dependent on additional investigators. He also said the office has 29 requests to review prior cases, but those reviews are time-intensive and limited to cases with new evidence. Committee members asked about staffing needs, local cooperation, and whether the office conducts parallel investigations; Rogoff said OII performs the criminal investigation, while agencies may still do administrative reviews. The committee then heard a lengthy panel on public defense caseload standards and funding. The Washington State Bar Association, Washington Defender Association, county representatives, and city representatives all discussed the new caseload standards and the implementation timeline. Speakers said the standards reflect modern public defense realities but warned that funding, attorney recruitment and retention, office space, and data collection remain major barriers. Survey results from county offices showed wide variation in readiness, with many counties uncertain about timelines and most citing lack of funding as the biggest obstacle; attorney attrition was also described as high. County and city representatives argued that the new standards will require far more attorneys and support staff, and that local governments cannot absorb the cost without substantial state funding. They urged the Legislature to increase state support, improve workforce pipelines, and address structural issues in the public defense system.

Transcript Highlights:

• say that I'm very happy to see compensatory aid funding in this bill as long as a work group to evaluate
• special competency criteria for special competency criteria for special education<00:53:26.480
• Section uh nine encourages competencies.
• rubric used to evaluate curriculum. rubric used to evaluate curriculum.
• <01:38:08.560> the statutory criteria for evaluating the statutory criteria for evaluating

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• all by ensuring Black Californians have the same opportunities to receive effective, culturally competent
• all by ensuring black Californians have the same opportunities to receive effective, culturally competent
• including stigma, distrust of the health care system, and a lack of providers who are culturally competent
• required medical intervention gives abortion disproportionate weight for clinicians examining and evaluating
• required medical intervention gives abortion disproportionate weight for clinicians examining and evaluating

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee met on March 25, 2025, with Chair Mia Bonta presiding and initially operating as a subcommittee until quorum was established. The committee heard several health-related bills, including AB 73 on creating a Black Mental Health Navigator certification, AB 499 on lowering the state reimbursement trigger for the Robert F. Kennedy Farm Workers Medical Plan, AB 843 on aligning California health insurance language-access rules with federal standards, AB 257 on a specialty care network using telehealth and virtual services for Medi-Cal and underserved communities, AB 64 on allowing diacritical marks on vital records, AB 315 on the Home and Community-Based Alternatives waiver, and AB 40 on clarifying that emergency services include reproductive health services such as abortion. Testimony generally emphasized disparities in access, culturally competent care, language access, rural provider shortages, and the importance of preserving or expanding programs that help vulnerable populations. Supporters included authors, state and local health organizations, advocacy groups, and affected individuals. AB 73 was backed as a way to address stigma, mistrust, and culturally competent mental health access for Black Californians. AB 499 was described as helping keep a self-insured farmworker health plan operational while maintaining a low-cost, labor-management model. AB 843 was supported as a way to prevent children and families from having to translate sensitive medical and insurance information and to protect limited-English-proficient Californians. AB 257 drew support as a demonstration project to improve specialty care access through California-based clinicians and virtual care, with examples of reduced wait times and costs. AB 64 received emotional testimony from the author, a child and his family, and others about the importance of accurately recording names with accents and other marks. AB 315 was presented as a cost-neutral or cost-saving way to expand home- and community-based care for medically fragile people, with strong support from disability, health, and provider groups. AB 40 drew support from reproductive health and medical organizations, while one opposition witness argued it could conflict with emergency care standards and overburden emergency departments. The committee took roll-call votes and advanced AB 499, AB 73, AB 843, AB 257, AB 64, AB 315, and AB 40 to Appropriations, with AB 40 receiving some no votes. The committee also adopted its 2025-26 rules and approved a consent calendar that included AB 225, AB 304, AB 403, AB 688, and AB 951. Several measures were initially placed on call and later lifted and recorded as passing out of committee before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• But it has a new evaluation component.
• But it has a new evaluation component.
• All schools in the district are affected by that evaluation at the LEA level.
• And then what are the standards of evaluation for that evidence?
• Evaluation criteria, the compendium of all the most detailed criteria for evaluation, distinct for each

Transcript Highlights:

• No, what I'm saying is they're not competing.
• So you're saying that they would have to compete with.
• So they would have to compete. Is that what, am I understanding that correctly?
• And the residents... who are from here, we're going to compete for those spots.
• But the key points a couple were made especially on residency and competing with residents.

Bills: HB713, HB827, HB932, HB499, HB510, HB163, HB296, HB879, HB913, HB163, HB296

Keywords: healthcare, maternal health, reporting requirements, Texas Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Review Committee, health provider immunity, workplace violence, nurses, grant program, healthcare facilities, safety measures, safety, nursing, grants, healthcare safety, verbal abuse, physical abuse, nurse empowerment, occupational therapy, licensure, interstate practice

Transcript Highlights:

• They don't get into the evaluation of the care, but the bottom line is you're not doing evaluation of
• They don't get into the evaluation of the care, but the bottom line is you're not doing evaluation of
• They don't get into the evaluation of the care, but the bottom line is you're not doing evaluation of
• They don't get into the evaluation of the care, but the bottom line is you're not doing evaluation of
• <03:26:22.319> um able to hit a a certain competency um able to hit a a certain competency

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a Division 3 budget work session focused on the Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Economic Stability. Karen Hebert, the division director, and Nathan White, DHHS chief financial officer, walked members through the governor’s operating budget pages and a briefing book, explaining that the division was consolidated in 2018 and serves programs aimed at financial stability, poverty reduction, child care access, and related supports. Members repeatedly asked for clearer breakdowns of general fund spending, historical growth since consolidation, and how the division’s broad mission areas map onto specific budget lines. A major portion of the discussion centered on the Bureau of Child Development and Head Start collaboration and the child care subsidy program. Hebert said the child care scholarship/subsidy helps low- and moderate-income families access daycare so parents can work, attend school, or receive treatment, and that eligibility is based on state median income up to 85%. She reported a 45% increase in utilization, 4,032 children receiving daycare support as of the end of January, and about 15% of eligible children being served. She also described the quality improvement system “Granite Steps for Quality,” with 160 providers enrolled out of 717 licensed programs, and noted that 1,200 child care professionals added credentials in the last year. Members pressed for cost-benefit information, asking for data on how much the state pays, how many providers and children are served, and whether the department could quantify unmet need. The witnesses said some projects were funded with short-term ARPA child care dollars and that detailed cost data for specific examples, such as the Gorm Community Learning Center expansion, would need to be looked up. They also explained that the child care fund is a federal block grant with required spending set-asides of 9% for quality, 3% for infants and toddlers, and up to 5% for administration, and that unused funds remain available. The committee also reviewed slide 10’s accounting units, including that the Child Care Workforce Fund is 100% general funds and was created as a priority item under HB 2 from the 2024 session, while some other child care-related units are 100% federal funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• Madam Chair, Representative, hi, I'm the Deputy Director for Evaluation at LFC, but I can add a little
• If a horse was injured during a race, we need to evaluate the horse maybe immediately or a day or two
• Competing.
• We have not been able to find someone to fill that position, per se, but in competing with different
• So those all have to be evaluated between six in the morning and race time at 11.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• attorneys is essential for us to be able to compete in hiring.
• But there are those vacillations all across the state where you have competing factors.
• Are there other companies willing to compete for that contract?
• So, to evaluate those applications, State Forestry established a review panel of representatives.
• So, to evaluate those applications, State Forestry established a review panel of representatives.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• When you're looking at biosimilar and generic drugs, companies use the WAC to compete against each other
• The one thing I will say, though, is those two areas of the market very directly compete with one another
• The one thing I will say, though, is those two areas of the market very directly compete with one another
• Louisiana families benefit when market participants are free to negotiate, compete, and innovate to deliver
• It's not only a regulator saying that. on something that they completely evaluated.

Bills: HB591, HB765, HB826, HB870, HB938, HB1151, HB1162, HB1176, HB1196, HB1236, HB1241

Keywords: family leave, insurance, paid leave, employment benefits, caregiver support, liability insurance, coverage defenses, direct action, judgment enforcement, legal procedures, insurance referrals, compensation, non-licensed agents, consumer protection, insurance products, HB 870, Act 907, Louisiana insurance, health insurance, prescription drugs

Transcript Highlights:

• Psychology actually had a skills base or a competency exam prior to 2017.
• I had told the board, I had told ASPPB, the longer we go without a skills or a competency-based exam,
• So if y'all feel like, look, Darryl, I think we need some sort of competency exam, that's fine.
• And it resulted in our agency engaging an independent entity to evaluate our minimum standards within
• Uh, the evaluation and management code includes the cost of giving that injection.

Transcript Highlights:

• Here, here's a perfect, you know, psychology actually had a skills base or a competency exam prior to
• The longer we go without a skills or a competency-based exam, you're actually building a better system
• So if y'all feel like, look Darryl, I think we need some sort of competency exam.
• Competency restoration while in custody at county jails. We do have that.
• In the emergency room, for example, there's a thing called an evaluation. and management code, and an

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That will compete with Kentucky's providers. We do not want that to happen.
• Uh, with the evaluation management codes, are there separate evaluation and management codes for Teller
• Uh, with the evaluation management codes, are there separate evaluation and management codes for Teller
• are<00:37:46.560> there evaluation management codes, are there evaluation management codes
• <00:37:49.119> codes separate evaluation and management codes separate evaluation and management

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: A presenter from Fast Health Corporation described a proposed Kentucky Health Command System tied to Senate Bill 175, which would create a state-sanctioned AI platform for rural hospitals and telehealth. The company said the system would help rural residents get health information remotely, triage minor issues, and escalate more serious cases to Kentucky providers, with use cases including blood pressure, diabetes, maternity care, smoking cessation, and other preventive-care topics. The presenter argued the system would help rural hospitals compete with out-of-state telehealth companies and keep patients connected to local care. The presentation also emphasized a commercial model the sponsor said would generate new revenue through ads and branded interactions, with the bill reportedly directing 80% of that revenue to rural hospitals and 20% to the state to maintain the system. The presenter said the technology would augment, not replace, doctors and nurses, and claimed it could improve access and convenience in underserved areas. Committee members raised concerns about liability, whether the AI could provide medical advice, and whether there was evidence it had reduced emergency room visits; the presenter said the system could not give medical advice and acknowledged the technology is still very new. The sponsor of the bill said the goal was to help transform rural health care, reduce unnecessary ER use, and capture revenue that would otherwise go to commercial search engines and out-of-state companies. No vote or final action was taken during the portion of the meeting provided, and the discussion ended with questions about branding, loyalty, and the legal limits of the AI system.

Transcript Highlights:

• We compete with the private sector as well as other state agencies for nursing personnel.
• As you know, S-Farhana is going live in July, and the current performance evaluation system will not
• This will help us evaluate all..." "This is kind of the final act of the pay plan.
• This will help us evaluate all our employees on an electronic basis.
• "Well, the first evaluation will take place probably in May of '27, so we can see what those results

Summary: The ALC-Review Subcommittee reviewed seven methods of finance, including university projects at ASU Jonesboro and Mountain Home, Black River Technical College deferred maintenance, UA Batesville’s Farm Project Gateway Center, UAMS PET cyclotron equipment, a new allied health building at UAPB funded by a federal grant, and UCA’s multi-purpose arena design work. The committee also approved an alternative delivery construction project for UAPB’s Allied Health and Sciences Building, with East Harding Construction selected and AMR Architects as designer. Members then approved discretionary grants from the Department of Health and DHS, including support for a heart attack center designation, community health worker training, homeless services funding corrections, behavioral health transition support, and an enabling technology pilot. In the contracts section, the committee reviewed RFQs, construction-related contracts, intergovernmental contracts, and a large slate of out-of-state and in-state contracts covering topics such as seatbelt survey data collection, Medicaid and DHS systems, state hospital staffing and services, veterans’ services, education assessments, and state IT and procurement projects. Several contracts drew extended questioning. Senators and representatives pressed DHS and the Department of Veterans Affairs about heavy reliance on contract nursing and staffing costs, and officials said they were using pay incentives and recruitment efforts to increase state employee staffing. Members also questioned AEDC’s lithium supply chain study and the Department of Education’s security contract, with concerns about projected costs and repeated amendments. The committee held three in-state contracts—Department of Education security services and two DHS staffing contracts—until Friday, then adopted the remaining contracts and received informational reports on contract amendments, executed contracts, and emergency procurements before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• I ask, what is your evaluation criteria for determining whether...?
• What will be your evaluation criteria to determine if your bill was effective if it's passed?
• Well, Senator, there are a number of criteria used to evaluate positions.
• I'm not hearing specific evaluation criteria in this.
• Are we not competent? Are we just supposed to be the help?

Bills: SJR12, SCR39, SB7, SB8, SB27, SB29, SB125, SB241, SB371, SB396, SB406, SB464, SB568, SB578, SB608, SB617, SB660, SB689, SB693, SB707, SB731, SB732, SB763, SB779, SB836, SB854, SB857, SB875, SB878, SB879, SB906, SB920, SB921, SB922, SB942, SB965, SB985, SB996, SB1029, SB1035, SB1036, SB1059, SB1084, SB1098, SB1101, SB1185, SB1188, SB1321, SB1332, SB1366, SB1388, SB1396, SB1453, SB1484, SB1494, SB1536, SB1563, SB1596, SB1610, SB1619, SB1737, SB1738, SB1741, SB1816, SB1822, SB1841, SB1939, SB2155, SB2188, SB2230, SJR36, SJR12, SJR81, SJR50, SCR22, SCR12, SCR39, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB504, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB241, SB304, SB1023, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB447, SB406, SB985, SB1119, SB1505, SB1215, SB1302, SB583, SB673, SB681, SB1172, SB608, SB955, SB957, SB1120, SB541, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB125, SB53, SB1352, SB785, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB507, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB763, SB667, SB1059, SB617, SB1567, SB310, SB311, SB505, SB1209, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB1029, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB878, SB1350, SB462, SB827, SB1585, SB1396, SB920, SB1484, SB1273, SB1741, SB7, SB927, SB1227, SB1229, SB1353, SB1366, SB1464, SB1709, SB1729, SB1733, SB1744, SB1772, SB1816, SB1841, SB2188, SB1147, SB879, SB1008, SB1536, SB2016, SB1453, SB1173, SB1163, SB996, SB27, SB568, SB1370, SB1321, SB1101, SB906, SB860, SB1563, SB993, SB693, SB1610, SB1537, SB836, SB1332, SB1307, SB963, SB493, SB922, SB984, SB1084, SB619, SB1098, SB1122, SB455, SB522, SB1057, SB1239, SB1254, SB1255, SB1259, SB1341, SB1664, SB1877, SB464, SB1277, SB32, SB732, SB660, SB731, SB921, SB268, SB1822, SB1188, SB1939, SB1589, SB397, SB1388, SB2230, SB1058, SB1036, SB1267, SB2112, SB1930, SB532, SB1035, SB2155, SB508, SB29, SB292, SB291, SB901, SB1333, SB1436, SB1494, SB964, SB779, SB1378, SB2312, SB1719, SB1386, SB287, SB2143, SB1245, SB261, SB1247, SB1948, SB2406, SB2407, SB1882, SB1197, SB1814, SB618, SB38, SB393, SB2065, SB1371, SB1394, SB1365, SB2243, SB2226, SB2039, SB1919, SB1895, SB1598, SB1493, SB1810, SB1791, SB1706, SB1644, SB1238, SB783, SB458, SB22, SB651, SB897, SB7, SB125, SB578, SB608, SB617, SB763, SB836, SB878, SB906, SB920, SB942, SB985, SB1084, SB1366, SB1388, SB1563, SB1737, SB1738, SB1816, SB1939, SB406, SB689, SR327, SR346, SR351, SR352

Keywords: parental rights, education, constitutional amendment, school choice, child education, border security, southern border, federal immigration policy, illegal immigration, cartels, transnational cartels, fentanyl, drug trafficking, human trafficking, Operation Lone Star, Texas border, National Guard, state guard, border wall, border barriers

Transcript Highlights:

• able to evaluate their outcomes.
• evaluations?
• In evaluation, is there a time limit on them?
• Legislatively mandated programs that are lacking evaluation.
• To my left is Josh Taffin, a Program Evaluator at the LFC.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's very significant evaluation that happens.
• There's very significant evaluation that happens.
• Women finally broke through the glass ceiling, and they could compete.
• be competing against the other sex that's already lower than you?
• And so I didn't really feel like I could compete. I felt like that was stopping me.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• What helped her get back to school What helped her get back to school was a special education evaluation
• Following this evaluation, she started attending a small therapeutic school.
• We applaud the efforts to increase qualified, competent social workers in the Commonwealth, and that's
• , worker performance, and documented competence.
• Through our partners, Sandra received a full EI evaluation and was found eligible for services and was

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a hybrid hearing on a range of bills affecting children, families, disability rights, homelessness, and social services. Early testimony focused on H.215, which would support children experiencing homelessness by speeding access to child care vouchers and early intervention screenings. Boston officials, Horizons for Homeless Children, Head Start, pediatric and early education advocates, and families described delays in child care and early intervention, the developmental risks of homelessness, and the need for automatic referrals and faster access to services. Testimony also supported H.216, which would improve emergency housing assistance by restoring presumptive eligibility, reducing documentation barriers, extending shelter stays from six to nine months, and creating an ombudsperson; providers and legal advocates said current rules leave families sleeping in cars or outside and create unnecessary administrative hurdles. The committee also heard strong support for H.210, which would repeal the “Learn Fair” school attendance sanction that cuts cash assistance to families when children miss school. Advocates from legal aid, education, and anti-poverty organizations argued the policy is punitive, burdensome, and ineffective, disproportionately affecting low-income, disabled, and Hispanic/Latino families. Several speakers said chronic absenteeism should be addressed through supports such as family outreach, wraparound services, and school engagement rather than benefit cuts. Legislators and school officials from Salem also testified that their districts reduced absenteeism through supportive strategies, not sanctions. Additional testimony addressed children’s vision bills H.202 and H.166, with optometrists and researchers urging better screening, data systems, and treatment access to close achievement gaps caused by untreated vision problems. Senator Lovely also presented S.2714, proposing a study of discrimination in public accommodations for people with service animals. Later, testimony on H.279 supported changing social work licensure rules to remove exam requirements that speakers said disproportionately exclude multilingual candidates and candidates of color. The hearing also included testimony on bills related to the Judge Rotenberg Center and electric shock devices, with disability rights advocates opposing continued use of the devices and urging the committee to reject licensing or authorization for them. No votes or committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• When you mention negotiation, how is the outcome of that negotiation evaluated?
• Is there a measurement and evaluation?
• You guys want to go back and re-evaluate.
• LFC is going to start looking at the evaluation of these things.
• Gaps in funding and disrupted services can also lead to delays in evaluation.

Transcript Highlights:

• ,<00:15:59.360> that's half long process of evaluation, that's half long process of evaluation
• We compete with Ohio a lot on things, and so this one particularly rang true with me.
• <00:20:19.600> We<00:20:19.840> compete pretty competitive person.
• We compete pretty competitive person.
• <00:24:30.799> opening places like Kentucky to evaluate opening places like Kentucky to evaluate

Keywords: Meeting Start - 00:00 Roll Call – 00:15 Approval of Minutes of the July 15, 2025, Meeting 00:55 Helping Power Kentucky’s Growth – 01:25 Powering and Deploying AI – 41:00 Fueling America’s Intelligence – 56:12 Adjournment – 01:10:37, 958, all

Summary: The Artificial Intelligence Task Force met with a quorum, adopted prior meeting minutes, and then focused on energy policy and economic development as they relate to AI and data centers. John Bevington of LG&E and KU, introduced by Caroline Clark of LG&E/KU and PPL, described the utility’s Kentucky-only service territory, vertically integrated system, 1.3 million customers, and about 7.5 gigawatts of generating capacity. He said the company has supported 76 Kentucky projects in 2024 totaling about $3 billion in announced investment and roughly 3,000 jobs, with a large share of statewide announcements occurring in its service area. Bevington said LG&E and KU’s current project pipeline is unusually strong, totaling about 170 projects and 8.5 gigawatts of requested power, with data centers accounting for about two-thirds of that demand. He broke the pipeline into existing customer expansions, new-to-Kentucky projects, and 20 data center projects representing about 5.6 gigawatts of potential load. He highlighted a Louisville data center project by PO Development Company and Powerhouse Data Centers that has announced a 400-megawatt facility and may expand to 525 megawatts, estimating that such a project could represent about $4 billion in investment. He also explained that large data centers generally must locate near transmission lines and that utilities must conduct studies, order long-lead equipment, and secure reimbursement commitments before proceeding so other customers are not harmed. Members asked about how Kentucky compares with other states, the size of data center projects, and whether regulatory reform is needed. Bevington said the 20 projects reflect current Kentucky interest, which he attributed in part to the state’s sales tax exemption for data centers, and noted that states like Ohio have had similar incentives for years. In response to questions from Senator Thomas, he confirmed that data centers can vary in size and said the state should have a regulatory environment that supports economic development, while emphasizing that the benefits would flow to the state, local communities, and schools rather than just the utility. He also cited national and regional data suggesting data centers generate indirect jobs and tax revenue, and said LG&E and KU are investing in transmission, reliability, solar, and gas generation projects, including proposed additional 645-megawatt natural gas units and other system upgrades, to meet expected demand.

Transcript Highlights:

• our last subcommittee heard from Cub out planned performance and the measures upon which they're evaluated
• We're able to compete compete in this market because of our customer service to our to our members and
• claim. >> He recognized we have all like there's a lot of processes that occur like relative to evaluating
• I think it's a total of 55 metrics that you all are evaluated on. I was just curious.
• Once you had that exam, it was a lifetime evaluation after repeats. Are we repeating that exam?