Transcript Highlights:

• Vote on it.
• Vote on it.
• Vote on it.
• Vote on it.
• Vote on it.

Bills: HR77

Keywords: Fred Korematsu, civil liberties, constitutional rights, Japanese internment, historical education, national reflection, personal justice

Transcript Highlights:

• And I tried my best to collect those names and preferences on those minutes.
• So we didn’t make any votes for subcommittees as a whole.
• . have to do a motion, a formal one and someone a second and then do a vote.
• So we didn't make any votes for subcommittees as a whole.
• And then in terms of timeline, I know. shared but not voted on in the first meeting.

Summary: The Cape Verdean Cultural Commission met to approve the May 11 meeting minutes and receive a legislative update. The commission reported that Senator Miranda’s FY27 budget amendment secured $125,000 for the commission, pending final conference committee and gubernatorial approval, with funds expected to become available in the fall if retained. A separate part of the amendment that would have allowed commissioners to be appointed at any point in the commission’s history was not adopted, leaving one vacancy unresolved for now. The commission then finalized its subcommittee structure. Members discussed the originally proposed communications and outreach, survey and data collection, and fundraising/resource development groups, but after discussion and a motion, the body voted to establish four subcommittees: Communications and Outreach, Survey and Data Collection, Organizational Development, and History and Culture. Members also raised ethics concerns about legislators serving on the fundraising-related group, and the title was broadened to organizational development. The chair asked members to sign up within about two weeks so subcommittees could meet before the next full commission meeting. The meeting also focused on an upcoming visit by President José Neves of Cabo Verde. Commissioners were invited to attend a smaller 10:30 a.m. meeting with the president and delegation, followed by a larger community gathering from 11 a.m. to noon, with capacity limited and RSVPs encouraged. Members emphasized using the visit to reinforce support for the cultural center project and to highlight the importance of Massachusetts’ Cape Verdean diaspora. In public comment, members discussed gathering event listings for Cape Verdean summer celebrations, including Independence Day events, and suggested future meetings could include presentations from other cultural institutions about how they developed their projects. The commission adjourned after a motion and vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, and I'll explain my vote.
• Yes, and I'll explain my vote.
• Representative Ranking Member Terrazas: Yes, and I'll explain my vote.
• Let's have Representative Anaya explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.
• I just want to explain my vote.

Summary: The House Labor, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee met and first heard House Memorial 7, which asks Legislative Council Service, the State Personnel Office, DFA, and GSD to study the use of temporary, term, seasonal, casual, on-call, and other non-regular classifications in state government. The memorial was presented as a response to concerns that some workers are repeatedly terminated and rehired, sometimes after a one-day break, to avoid regular status and associated benefits. Testimony from CWA and AFSCME described long-term temporary workers at the National Hispanic Cultural Center and other agencies who allegedly do full-time work without health insurance, retirement, leave, or consistent pay progression, and who in some cases were denied union coverage. Committee members questioned the scope, definitions of temporary employment, and whether the issue should instead be referred to the state auditor; the sponsor said the study would gather data and recommendations first. The committee voted due pass, and House Memorial 7 passed unanimously. The committee then heard House Bill 177, which appropriates funds to the Veterans Services Department to contract for shelter and care of service and companion animals so veterans can access housing, medical care, and other services without fearing separation from their pets. Support came from the Veterans Services Department, Animal Protection New Mexico, and the Veterans and Military Families Caucus/Veterans Integration Center, all of whom said pets are often a barrier to veterans seeking care and that existing community-based animal boarding models could be used. The bill received no opposition, and the committee voted due pass with no opposition. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 43, a PERA cleanup bill intended to update and clarify the Public Employees Retirement Act and align it with administrative practice. Testimony focused on a provision allowing PERA to use licensed physicians, including out-of-state physicians who can be licensed in New Mexico, to serve on the disability review process when needed so disability cases are not delayed. Committee members raised concerns about ensuring medical expertise and avoiding abuse of the licensing flexibility, but PERA explained the change was meant to address recruitment difficulties and maintain timely review. The committee voted due pass on House Bill 43.

Transcript Highlights:

• We strongly prefer that, actually.
• We strongly prefer that, actually.
• We strongly prefer that, actually.
• So if you're asking for my personal preference, that would be my personal preference rather than see
• If not, any votes or reservations now? One member states: 'I'm going to vote no on this measure.'

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard SB 1231, which would repeal the Parentage Uniform Act of 1973 and update Hawaii’s parentage laws, including parts of the Uniform Parentage Act of 2017. Supporters said the current statutes are outdated and do not adequately address assisted reproduction, surrogacy, and modern family formation. The Attorney General’s office supported the bill with technical amendments, including conforming changes to the Probate Code and child support provisions, and several testifiers urged passage as a needed modernization of the law. A major point of disagreement was Part 10, which concerns donor anonymity. Some supporters, including members of the task force, the Uniform Law Commission, fertility and family law practitioners, and LGBTQ+ advocates, backed the bill as written or said it should move forward even if Part 10 is removed. Others, including donor-conceived adults, parents, and advocacy groups, opposed Part 10 and urged the committee to adopt the 2024 version of Article 9 or delete Part 10 entirely, arguing that anonymous donation harms donor-conceived people’s access to genetic, medical, and identity information and that anonymity is not realistic in the DNA-testing era. One task force member and attorney said she supported the bill but preferred removing Part 10 if necessary to pass the rest. The hearing included extensive public testimony both in support and opposition, with many individuals describing personal experiences with adoption, IVF, surrogacy, and donor conception. No committee vote or final action on the bill was taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Massullo voted no. Senator Harrell voted no.
• Senator Pasidomo’s vote was not clearly captured in the transcript.
• And please vote yes to pass SB 844. Thank you. Senators, we're in debate.
• And by your vote, please— Mr. Trumbull? Yes. Chair Burton?
• I'm here to urge you to vote no on SB 1758.

Bills: S0036 , S0864 , S0268 , S0844 , S0514 , S1404 , S0914 , S1758

Committee: Senate Health Policy

Summary: The committee first considered SB 268, a public records exemption for emergency physicians. Senator Rodriguez’s strike-all amendment narrowed and clarified the exemption, and testimony from an emergency physician described threats, harassment, and safety concerns tied to mandatory reporting and patient encounters. The committee adopted the amendment and reported the bill favorably as a committee substitute. Members then heard SB 514, creating the Dula Support for Healthy Births Pilot Program in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach counties for pregnant and postpartum women affected by substance use disorder. Senator Osgood explained the pilot would provide non-medical doula support and data collection, and an amendment changed the funding source to specific appropriations in the General Appropriations Act. Supporters said doula care can improve maternal and infant outcomes and complement medical providers. The committee adopted the amendment and reported the bill favorably as a committee substitute. The committee also approved SB 36 on use of professional nursing titles after extensive debate over whether nurses with doctoral degrees should be allowed to use “doctor” in clinical settings, with concerns raised about patient confusion and the need for clearer identification. The bill was amended to align with the House version and then reported favorably as a committee substitute. The committee next approved SB 864, a public records exemption for uterine fibroid research data, after a technical amendment setting a July 1, 2026 effective date; Senator Sharif said the exemption is needed so the Department of Health can collect sensitive data for the related research bill. SB 844, requiring continuing education on sickle cell disease care management for certain licensed physicians and nurses, was also reported favorably after emotional testimony from patients and advocates describing delayed care and bias. Later, the committee approved SB 1404 on memory care, after a strike-all amendment creating a new memory care specialty license for assisted living facilities that advertise or provide specialized memory care services, while allowing optional supportive services without the new license. Supporters from the senior living industry backed the clarification. The committee then passed SB 914, which clarifies that licensed occupational therapists may perform dry needling, after an amendment adjusting supervision and continuing education language. Finally, the committee took up SB 1758, a broad Medicaid and SNAP reform bill that would strengthen fraud enforcement, impose Medicaid work requirements for certain able-bodied adults, expand behavioral health services, modernize drug purchasing and prior authorization, and require SNAP fraud-reduction measures. Several amendments were adopted, and members questioned the work requirement, implementation costs, EBT card photo identification, and due process concerns; debate continued as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• All those vote who desire to vote, All those vote who desire to vote.
• All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote.
• All those vote who desire to vote, all those vote who desire to vote, all those vote who desire to vote
• All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote. All those vote who desire to vote.
• All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote who desire to vote. All those vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'll be voting with reservations. Okay. Chair, for the vote. Okay. Chair, for the vote.
• Chair, for the vote. Okay, we're Okay. Chair, for the vote.
• </c> are they voting members? are they voting members?
• Okay, we're voting on SB 2972 SD1." voting powers voting powers to<02:06:37.560><c> people</c><02:06:
• Right chair for the vote. Thank you. Right chair for the vote.

Bills: SB3253 , SB2401 , SB3169 , SB17 , SB3014 , SB3032 , SB1432 , SB2002 , SB2972 , SB3247

Committee: House Water & Land

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land heard testimony on SB 5253 SD2 relating to conservation and SB 2401 relating to regional shoreline mitigation district, with the chair emphasizing short testimony limits and the need to finish before session. On SB 5253, DLNR said it stood on its written testimony and answered questions about the bill’s proposed nonprofit endangered species sanctuary. Members asked whether existing entities or agreements, such as land trusts, private landowners, and DLNR safe harbor agreements, could accomplish similar conservation goals without creating a new entity. DLNR said similar work already exists, but it was not aware of a comparable sanctuary model in the state. A member also questioned language suggesting for-profit businesses in the sanctuary, and DLNR said the intent appeared to be sales of outreach or similar materials, though it agreed that such activities could be handled by a nonprofit. The bulk of the hearing focused on SB 2401, which would create a regional shoreline adaptation/mitigation framework. The Department of the Attorney General said it had concerns about inconsistent use of the terms “mitigation” and “adaptation,” warning of possible title-subject issues. DLNR said it was neutral on the terminology and more concerned with the substance, and noted that the bill would not waive permits; any plan would still require environmental review and applicable state and county permits. DLNR also supported OHA’s recommendation to consider impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during regional planning, and said the bill’s language on temporary shoreline protection measures could help address the gap between emergency permits and longer-term planning while avoiding a hardening-only approach. The Office of Planning supported the regional planning concept but noted it is not a regulatory agency and would need to work with DLNR and the Land Board. OHA supported the bill’s planning-based approach but recommended amendments to require assessment of impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during plan development and to clarify that environmental review would still apply at the project level. Testifiers from the Ka‘anapali Steering Committee strongly supported the bill, saying it would provide a regional framework for ongoing erosion problems while preserving full regulatory authority and normal permitting, and they proposed amendments to standardize terminology, create a limited pathway for temporary shoreline protection, and address ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Members discussed the meaning of “mitigation” versus “adaptation,” the scope of shoreline hardening, and whether the bill would help the legislature take a broader, more holistic view of shoreline decisions. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• or vote a certain way and what this Vote or vote a certain way and what this language<01:07:52.720><
• </c> somebody to vote or refrain from voting somebody to vote or refrain from voting in<01:16:35.400>
• Co-Chair Freiberg voted yes. Vice Chair Altendorf voted no. Vice Chair Lee voted yes.
• Representative Acomb voted yes. Representative Coulter voted yes. Representative Davis voted no.
• Representative McDonald voted no. Representative Roach voted no. Representative Virnig voted yes.

Committee: House Elections Finance and Government Operations

Transcript Highlights:

• Most people don't actually prefer one or the other that much. They just want to stop the switch.
• But our members clearly prefer daylight saving time and strongly oppose permanent standard time.
• It is important to emphasize that our study does not point to a preference for standard time or daylight
• So we didn't have a preference in our study for one. time or the other in terms of how you set it.
• It was installed in the House, never had a vote over it.

Committee: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee

Keywords: daylight saving time, Sunshine Protection Act, health impacts, clock change, legislative discussion

Summary: The committee meeting was dedicated to discussing significant legislative topics, focusing particularly on the implications of daylight saving time (DST). Senator Scott advocated for the Sunshine Protection Act, which aims to eliminate the twice-yearly clock changes and keep daylight saving time year-round. He emphasized the negative health impacts associated with DST, including increased risks of heart attacks and accidents immediately following the time changes. Various witnesses provided personal testimonies and expert opinions, highlighting the confusion and health disruptions caused by the current time change practices.

Transcript Highlights:

• I do want to note that there we don't need to vote on that.
• JLARC are the review of tax preferences.
• improve the performance of tax preferences.
• That table would evaluate a tax preference statement on four criteria.
• preference and on the performance metric and the subsequent JLARC review of the tax preference.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee met on January 7, 2026, approved the December minutes, and adopted an amended work plan. Staff proposed moving the drug takeback program sunset review up to 2026 and delaying the thermal energy network pilot review to 2028, which would free capacity for new studies. Members also noted bills that would eliminate two recurring JLARC reports, including one on unemployment insurance training benefits and one on lodging tax revenue reporting. The committee then discussed JLARC’s own performance measures and a pilot approach for evaluating tax preference performance statements in fiscal notes. Staff said JLARC will begin surveying members and the full legislature on satisfaction, track invitations to present to other committees, monitor recommendation resolution rates, staff retention, on-time report delivery, peer review results, and national recognition. For tax preference reviews, staff proposed a standard rubric to assess whether performance metrics match policy goals, are measurable, use reliable data, and allow enough time for evaluation; members generally supported the effort. Staff also outlined planned changes to public records reporting, including allowing agencies to opt out of tracking low-volume metrics, targeted outreach to nonreporting agencies, better data validation, clearer online guidance, and a survey of public records officers. The main audit presentation was a preliminary report on ignition interlock device compliance and monitoring. JLARC found that about 41% of drivers required to install devices had done so, with installation rates rising sharply with income; half of affected drivers earned less than $28,000 a year, and the typical annual device cost was about $2,700. Staff said the state’s financial assistance program has limited reach and lacks clear goals, performance measures, and coordination between the Department of Licensing and State Patrol. They recommended that the agencies formalize their roles and develop a coordinated strategy to improve installation rates. State Patrol and Licensing said they support the findings, described recent outreach pilots, and said they would work on a management plan and possible expansion of outreach efforts. JLARC also presented an expedited preliminary report on the drug take-back program’s fee setting and expenditures. Staff concluded that the current fee design limits the Department of Health’s ability to recover oversight costs and that public reporting of oversight expenditures would improve transparency. They recommended that DOH publicly report its oversight activities and that the legislature amend the fee structure to remove the cap tied to program operator expenditures. DOH agreed the current structure does not fully recover costs and said it would support a statutory change. The committee adjourned after noting its next regular meeting is scheduled for April 8, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• I ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Take a roll call vote.
• I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
• Respectfully ask for an aye vote.
• Would love an I vote. Thank you. Great. I have a roll call vote.
• Wicks: Not voting. Wilson: Not voting. All right, 6-0. We'll keep that open for absent members.

Summary: The committee heard a long agenda of housing-related bills, beginning with AB 249, which would require youth-specific coordinated entry assessments for homeless services. The author and supporters from Larkin Street Youth Services and the California Coalition for Youth argued that current vulnerability tools are adult-focused and can disadvantage young people; the bill was described as a developmentally appropriate fix to better connect youth to housing and prevention services. There was no opposition, and the bill passed 7-0 to Human Services. Members then heard AB 239 and AB 1206. AB 239 would create a state-led disaster housing task force, a state disaster housing coordinator, and regular legislative reporting to speed recovery after disasters; it passed 7-0 to Emergency Management. AB 1206 would let local agencies pre-approve plans for single-family and small multifamily homes of up to 10 units to reduce permitting delays and costs; the League of California Cities opposed it unless amended, citing local variation and staffing concerns, but the author and supporters said it would preserve local control and help speed housing production. The bill passed 9-0 to Local Government. The committee also took up AB 57, which would reserve at least 10% of California’s home purchase assistance funds for descendants of formerly enslaved people. Supporters framed it as reparative justice and a way to address longstanding racial disparities in homeownership, while Pacific Legal Foundation argued it likely violated constitutional limits on race-based government action and urged a race-neutral approach. After discussion about reparations criteria and the bill’s intent, it passed 6-0 to Judiciary. The consent calendar, including AB 480, AB 726, and AB 1154, was approved 8-0. Later, AB 282 was heard to allow housing providers to prefer applicants who participate in rental assistance programs, such as Housing Choice Vouchers, despite existing source-of-income discrimination law. Supporters said it would help voucher holders find units and improve affordable housing operations; no opposition testified, and the bill passed 6-1 to Judiciary. AB 1229 followed, restructuring the adult reentry grant program to focus on permanent housing for people leaving prison by moving administration to HCD and using regional administrators; supporters emphasized the link between housing stability and reduced recidivism, and the bill passed 7-0 to Public Safety. The committee then approved AB 670, which would let local governments count preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing toward housing element goals and require better demolition reporting, and AB 750, which would strengthen oversight and reporting for homeless shelters after a prior reporting law saw very low compliance. AB 670 passed 8-0 to Local Government, and AB 750 was presented with testimony from a shelter resident describing abuse and lack of accountability in shelters.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, you know, I would prefer that we maybe withdraw this amendment so that we are not voting against
• So, you know, I would prefer that we maybe withdraw this amendment so that we are not voting against
• </c> &gt;&gt; Allen votes yes. &gt;&gt; Allen votes yes.
• </c> for a no vote on this. for a no vote on this.
• </c> ask folks to vote no. ask folks to vote no.

Summary: The committee took up House File 4252 and first heard a walkthrough of a DE2 amendment that largely incorporated Office of Higher Education technical and statutory cleanup items, including reporting consolidations, updates to postsecondary registration and licensing statutes, and an anti-fraud provision. New provisions in the DE2 would require public postsecondary institutions to explain developmental courses before enrollment and obtain a written acknowledgement, revise the state grant tuition cap, add a $1.5 million ongoing appropriation in FY 2027 for an identity verification system to combat enrollment fraud, and provide $5,000 one-time funding for reforestation at Bemidji State University. Fiscal staff also noted additional special revenue fund revenue and expenditures tied to licensing and registration litigation response. The main debate centered on the A8 amendment offered by Representative Rarick, which would require the governor to appoint University of Minnesota regents only from candidates recommended by the joint legislative committee if the legislature fails to elect regents. Rarick argued the amendment was needed to address what he described as conflicts of interest and pay-to-play concerns in recent gubernatorial appointments. Several members questioned whether the language was constitutional, whether it actually addressed conflicts of interest, and whether it should instead refer to ARCAC-screened or ARCAC-recommended candidates. Nonpartisan staff said the governor’s appointment power is addressed in the university charter, not directly in the constitution, but could not definitively assess constitutionality if challenged. Members were divided: some supported the goal of cleaner governance but said the amendment was not ready or did not match the problem being described; others argued the legislature had failed to complete its own regent appointments and that the amendment was a response to that failure. No vote on the A8 amendment or the bill was reached in the portion provided, though a roll call was requested on the amendment and the chair indicated the bill would continue through amendment consideration before final discussion and vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Charlie votes yes. Senator Duhigg votes no. Senator Azelle votes no.
• Senator Munoz votes yes. Senator Nava votes yes. Senator O'Malley votes yes.
• Senator Ramos votes yes. Senator Sanchez votes no. Senator Scott votes no.
• Senator Block votes yes. Senator Lanier votes no. Senator Paul votes no.
• Voting no. Senator Lopez, voting no. Senator Woods voting no.

Transcript Highlights:

• I wasn't sure what the committee's preference would be.
• What is the committee's preference? What is the committee's preference? >> Sure.
• What is the committee's preference? >> Sure.
• What is the committee's preference? Um, Mr.
• ,</c> after the date that they voted, after the date that they voted, that<00:21:38.240><c> really</c

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• certificate with no determined fiscal impact for the policy, with around half having a contact preference
• and community outreach contemplated in the bill to publicize the availability of the new contact preference
• Please vote yes on SB 381. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much.
• I respectfully ask for an I vote. Well, we won't have a vote, but actually we will have a vote.
• That Senator Richardson has arrived and has voted consistently with all of us, and thank you very much

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Summary: The Senate Committee on Appropriations met with a quorum and heard a large suspense-file agenda of 25 measures, reminding witnesses to focus on fiscal impacts. Most authors waived presentation, and the Department of Finance had no comments. The committee took public testimony on each item, with several bills receiving support from local governments, housing and transportation organizations, and other advocacy groups; one bill, SB 501, drew opposition from the Motorcycle Industry Council unless amended. Among the bills discussed in more detail was SB 381 by Senator Wahab, which would allow adopted adults and descendants to obtain original birth certificates through an administrative process and create a nonbinding contact preference form for birth parents. Supporters argued the bill addresses equal rights, health, identity, and court backlog concerns, and may have minimal or even offsetting fiscal effects. The committee also heard support for housing-related measures such as SB 417, transportation-related SB 667, and other bills on the agenda, though testimony was generally brief and limited to fiscal considerations. With no objections and no committee questions on the suspense-file candidates, the committee moved each measure to suspense, including SB 46, SB 342, SB 490, SB 574, SB 758, SB 73, SB 99, SB 247, SB 288, SB 327, SB 347, SB 381, SB 417, SB 828, SB 492, SB 501, SB 557, SB 623, SB 667, SB 742, SB 747, SB 811, SB 837, and SB 849. The roll was briefly left open for a late-arriving member, Senator Richardson, whose attendance was then recorded, and the meeting adjourned after all agenda items were sent to suspense.

Transcript Highlights:

• certificate with no determined fiscal impact for the policy, with around half having a contact preference
• and community outreach contemplated in the bill to publicize the availability of the new contact preference
• Please vote yes on SB 381. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much.
• I respectfully ask for an I vote. Well, we won't have a vote, but actually we will have a vote.
• That Senator Richardson has arrived and has voted consistently with all of us, and thank you very much

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• So what this means is that if you don't vote on it as a voter, you don't vote on the constitutional amendment
• is a vote in opposition.
• is a vote in opposition.
• </c> Vice Chair, for the vote?
• </c><01:34:43.480><c> or</c> any no votes or any no votes or reservations<01:34:45.400><c> he</c><01:

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SB 114, which would create a presidential preference primary for the 2028 election. The Office of Elections said the bill would cost about $4.1 million. Supporters, including the Hawaii Democratic Party and the League of Women Voters, favored moving the process to a state-run primary, while several opponents, including the Hawaiian Islands Republican Women and multiple individual testifiers, argued it would be too expensive, would shift control away from the parties, and would replace volunteer-run caucuses with a mail-in system. Committee members questioned the chief election officer about election timing, certification, and how a primary might be scheduled with other elections. Testimony was recorded as 11 in support, 41 opposed, and 3 comments, and no vote was taken in the excerpt. The committee then took up SB 725, which would require judges to make findings about a defendant’s ability to afford bail. Judiciary and Attorney General witnesses asked that the bill be deferred or amended, saying the Judicial Council is already reviewing pretrial bail reform and that the bill’s language could create practical problems for police, sheriffs, and courts. Supporters, including the Correctional System Oversight Commission, the public defender, the Community Alliance on Prisons, the ACLU of Hawaii, and disability rights advocates, said cash bail disproportionately harms low-income defendants, increases pretrial detention costs, and should require clearer findings and records. Opponents included the Hawaii County prosecuting attorney. Members questioned how bail is initially set, what records exist, and whether the bill would change current practice; Judiciary witnesses said initial bail decisions are often made by police or judges and later reviewed on the record, while supporters argued the bill would strengthen front-end due process. The ACLU said it supported the bill with amendments, including clearer standards for ability to pay and written findings. The committee also began hearing SB 733, a proposed constitutional amendment to establish a continuous legislative session. Early testimony was strongly supportive, with advocates arguing that the current 60-day session limits public participation, makes it hard for working people to testify, and prevents lawmakers from collaborating effectively. Supporters said a year-round model could improve transparency, reduce duplicate bills, and better accommodate neighbor island legislators. The excerpt ends during the opening testimony on SB 733, before any committee action or vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, do we get to vote on that? Um, no, I don't think you get to, Mr. Chair.
• So, do we get to vote on that? Um, no, I don't think you get to, Mr. Chair.
• Um, no, I So, do we get to vote on that?
• </c> encourage a negative vote. encourage a negative vote. Okay. Okay. Okay.
• Preference Preference 43A1<00:47:24.480><c> to</c><00:47:24.800><c> make</c><00:47:25.040><c> sure</

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Callan votes aye. Chase. Representative Chase votes nay, do not pass.
• Representative Callan votes aye. Representative Chase votes nay, do not pass. Couture.
• McEntire votes nay, without recommendation. Ortiz-Self votes aye. Pollet votes aye.
• Reeves votes aye. Rule is excused. Scott votes aye. Steele.
• Representative Donaghy, how do you vote? All those opposed, please indicate by voting nay.

Committee: House Education

Transcript Highlights:

• here, only members of the Executive Committee can vote, and TVW will provide live stream coverage of
• Okay, voted aye, I assume, right? Aye, yes. Oh, thank you. Director Leathers? Aye. Member Muriel.
• I—I hear, vote. You have approved our June minutes.
• I guess we have to vote on this, right? This is one of the items we vote on. Thank you.
• Oh, I think you don't have to vote on this, actually, because this is the... you don't have to vote on

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Summary: The Executive Committee of the State Committee on Pension Policy approved the June minutes and received updates from staff and counsel. The attorney reported on two class action matters: the Fowler/Probst Fowler teacher interest case, where a court ordered the state to pay $118 million and the state has appealed and sought a stay, and the Dawson case challenging last year’s HB 2034 related to the LEOFF 1 plan, where the complaint was amended and the state plans to move to dismiss. The actuary also provided a brief update on asset smoothing and offered to provide additional education on the topic. The committee then focused on interim work planning and the September agenda. Members discussed an ad hoc COLA for PERS and TRS Plan 1 retirees, with staff explaining options for making a COLA part of the base budget or otherwise structuring it. The committee agreed to move forward with a bill for a Plan 1 ad hoc COLA and to have it considered in October, with a request for fiscal analysis. The committee also heard from a Washington State Patrol Troopers Association representative about survivor medical benefits, and staff said a cost estimate could be prepared for October if the proposal included retroactive coverage. For September, the committee set the agenda to include PERS eligibility for animal control officers, a LEOFF 1 medical study update with possible action, and the Plan 1 ad hoc COLA item. Staff said the work plan would also add the ongoing Plan 1 COLA and survivor medical topics to October, along with preliminary 2027 meeting dates. The meeting ended with informal approval of the September agenda and adjournment.