Transcript Highlights:

• We and all other state revenue departments are still making our way through it, waiting for IRS guidance
• Or does it need to go to the IRS?
• Next thing you know, somebody's asking questions from the IRS, and you're trying to explain it.
• Explain why we have IRS audits. Madam Chair, members of the committee, my name is Dee Wald.
• The first thing I'm going to say is the IRS taxes everything.

Transcript Highlights:

• What they should not have to be focused on is complying with bureaucratic red tape at the IRS.
• In my district alone, we have seen 376 constituents who have had stolen IRS checks.
• In my district alone, we have seen 376 constituents who have had stolen IRS checks.
• It's been reported that for IRS checks alone, 40,000 were stolen nationally in 2024.
• And these outdated IRS regulations are partially to blame.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Monday, March 31, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, I'm just a little bit concerned that the IRS is sitting back here, and we have one group that's
• saying, oh, the programs will be subject to IRS disapproval.
• The programs will be subject to IRS disapproval.
• So I think that, to me, having Ice Miller here and continuing to dive down into that IRS piece of this
• So I think that, to me, having Ice Miller here and continuing to dive down into that IRS piece of this

Summary: The Select Committee on Pension Policy Executive Committee approved the June minutes and received a brief update from Assistant Attorney General Jesse Yoder, who had no litigation updates but offered to answer questions. Actuary Michael Harbour then previewed the September full committee meeting, which will include a report on the financial condition of the DRS-administered pension plans and the state actuary’s recommended economic assumptions. He also cautioned that any actuarial pricing done over the summer could change if assumptions are updated, and suggested taking votes on potential legislation later in the interim, possibly in November or December. A discussion followed about the Left 1 benefit improvement and where the funding came from. Harbour said the benefit tied to SSB 5791 (2022) was paid from the Left 1 trust fund, while a separate Left 2 benefit improvement was in SHB 1701, and he agreed to double-check the issue with DRS after members raised conflicting information. Members then discussed the broader Left 1 study, including whether IRS approval is a key barrier and whether options are limited to merger or closure. Several members asked to hear from Ice Miller, which has been advising on the tax issues, and staff said the committee should receive a written response in the next couple of weeks and could have Ice Miller appear in October. The committee reviewed and adjusted its interim work plan. September will include the actuarial presentations, a more detailed Left 1 study update, and a presentation on PERS and TERS Plan 1 COLAs, including a recap of the bill recommended this year and initial considerations for an ad hoc COLA. October is expected to include DRS administrative and performance updates, with November reserved for the State Investment Board update and a final Left 1 study update, and December may include an educational presentation on excess compensation. Members also requested a future briefing on the month-of-death benefit discussion. The September agenda was adopted, correspondence materials were noted, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:25:02.480> says but the IRS says but the IRS says that<00:25:04.320> to<00:25:04.559
• <00:25:22.720> that which is and uh and it's the IRS that which is and uh and it's the IRS
• about the IRS um eventually figuring<00:33:31.679> out<00:33:31.840> that<00:33:32.000
• Just to clarify, I just looked up a document from the IRS, and my concern is alleviated.
• a document from the IRS and my concern<00:36:12.640> is<00:36:13.040> alleviated.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met in work session and focused only on SB 291; SB 249 and SB 83 were postponed for at least two weeks, and the chair said there would be no meeting next week. The chair also announced a deadline of the 22nd for clearing out drawers and lockers, and reminded members about a field trip to Nashua the next day and mileage paperwork for attendees. For SB 291, the chair distributed Amendment 2025-1925H, explaining that it was intended to simplify the bill and address concerns about church parsonages by allowing a church to rent out a parsonage and apply the net income to a pastor’s housing allowance. Members discussed whether the language could unintentionally exclude non-Christian denominations, whether the bill was too narrow, and what guardrails would prevent abuse. Several members said the amendment was clearer and supported it, while one member preferred retaining the bill for more study. The discussion also touched on how “church” and “parsonage” are defined under existing law and IRS rules, with the chair and others saying the language was broad enough and that no testimony from other religious groups had raised concerns. After the discussion, the chair took a straw poll showing support for the amendment and then closed the work session. In executive session, a motion was made and seconded to ought to pass SB 291.

Transcript Highlights:

• , claimed in their tax filing to the IRS, claimed in their tax filing to the IRS, but<00:12:28.200
• determine<00:12:38.800> whether IRS auditors can help determine whether IRS auditors can
• purged the IRS auditing team last year. purged the IRS auditing team last year.
• That is IRS data from the last year. And so, people are leaving.
• That is that IRS data from the last That is that IRS data from the last year. year. year.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• <05:25:56.718> I treatment of taxpayers at the IRS. I treatment of taxpayers at the IRS.
• Uh the IRS approvals. Sorry.
• IRS and its<05:32:26.000> agents.
• Without the toe-to-toe with the IRS.
• ensuring accountability of the IRS ensuring accountability of the IRS within<05:42:10.638> our

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Monday, December 1, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• IRS code.
• <01:21:05.360> section<01:21:05.960> 290.19 of the IRS section 290.19 of the IRS section
• <01:28:38.800> guidance,<01:28:39.520> and grounded in law, prior IRS guidance, and
• In year two, the IRS conducts year one.
• found to have violated the IRS law. found to have violated the IRS law.

Bills: HF4234, HF3697, HF1183, HF4738

Keywords: HF4234, Minnesota private activity bonds, tax-exempt bonds, bond cap, aggregate bond limitation, residential rental projects, multifamily housing, affordable housing finance, housing bonds, public finance, bond allocation, private activity bond cap, Minnesota Statutes 474A.02, tax committee, tax refund, Minnesota Statutes, time limit, claims, tax overpayment, taxation

Summary: The committee first adopted the April 14, 2026 minutes as amended, correcting a misspelling in the reference to Chair Davids. It then heard House File 4234, a tax-exempt bonding/affordable housing bill from Representative Rey Rower, and adopted a technical A1 amendment before laying the bill over for possible inclusion in the 2026 tax bill. The bill would conform Minnesota law to recent federal changes to low-income housing tax credit rules by lowering the amount of tax-exempt bonds needed for projects to qualify, with the stated goal of spreading bond allocations across more projects and increasing affordable housing production without additional state funds. Testimony in support came from the bill author, the Greater Minnesota Housing Fund, and Mary Tingerthal, who said the change would increase efficiency in the use of federal bond authority and could raise the number of funded housing projects from about 16 to 25 per year, bringing in roughly $120 million more annually for housing. Members discussed where the benefits would be felt statewide, including greater Minnesota and larger metro areas, and the author said the bill would help address shortages in affordable and senior housing. The committee took no final vote on the bill, instead laying it over. The committee next heard House File 3697 from Vice Chair Norris, which would change Minnesota’s tax refund claim timelines to better align with federal law and most other states. The author and a tax attorney testifier said the bill would reduce confusion and help taxpayers, especially vulnerable individuals who may overpay or be overassessed and then miss the current deadline to seek refunds. The Department of Revenue said it had no concerns with the language and did not oppose the bill, and the committee laid the bill over for possible inclusion in the 2026 tax bill. Finally, the committee began hearing House File 4738 from Representative Keeler, a Safe Harbor funding proposal for victims of sex trafficking and sexually exploited youth. The author described Safe Harbor as a statewide program serving youth across Minnesota and said the committee should consider creative funding options, but Chair Davids stated the proposed funding source would not work because it would take money from women’s sports scholarships. Testifiers from Lake House in Duluth and a former Safe Harbor youth described the program’s impact on homeless and trafficked youth, including shelter, mental health services, education, and transition to adulthood. The hearing continued with testimony, but no action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then finally, whether the person satisfies the IRS guidelines for determining that an individual
• Now, there's a lot of consternation with that fourth one regarding the IRS determination.
• The IRS requires that you consider multiple factors and weigh those factors against each other.
• A tax benefit status through the IRS allows us to take contributions pre-tax and allows our investors
• Well, thank you, Madam Chair, for disabusing him of that because, you know, the IRS is breathing down

Transcript Highlights:

• These policies are already in place through the IRS statutes governing 501(c)(3)s.
• These policies follow the federal IRS statutes.
• However, if you go on the website, ...policies follow the federal IRS statutes.
• People have no idea we have these IRS guidelines. They have no idea.
• We have this IRS bill. We have this IRS code already.

Summary: The Education Administration Subcommittee met with a quorum and took up two bills. The first, PCS for HB 725 on political activity at public institutions of higher education, would require colleges and universities to notify students and employees about existing campus political activity rules at orientation and on their websites, and to adopt standardized policies through the State Board of Education and Board of Governors. The sponsor said the bill is intended to mirror federal IRS/501(c)(3) guidelines, protect institutions from risking federal funding, and clarify what is and is not allowed; supporters framed it as an awareness and free-expression measure, while opponents warned it could chill speech, create vague enforcement standards, and lead to unintended consequences for students and faculty. Public testimony was largely opposed, with speakers from student, civil liberties, education, and advocacy groups raising free-speech concerns. The committee passed the bill 13-5. The second measure, PCS for HB 1437, addressed disputes under mutual management plans between conversion charter schools and district school boards. The sponsor said the bill fills a gap by providing a clearer dispute-resolution path through mediation by the Department of Education or, ultimately, an administrative law judge at DOAH. Members asked about appeal rights and whether DOE is perceived as favoring charter schools; the sponsor said the bill simply sets the process for the current issue and that the administrative law judge provision serves as the final step. There was no public testimony, and the bill was reported favorably 18-0.

Transcript Highlights:

• navigate complex issues with both IRS navigate complex issues with both IRS and<01:02:06.359>
• by 50% um we already have seen IRS by 50% um we already have seen thousands<01:21:09.480> of<
• There are estimates already that, given the erosion of IRS staffing, that revenue, this is just like,
• We rely on the IRS having, you know, an operational audit function, and the people who this benefits
• We rely on the IRS having, you know, an operational audit function, and the people who this benefits

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 2437, the governor’s proposed tax bill, and first adopted the A25-Z42 amendment to put the bill in the desired shape. Commissioner Paul Marquardt of the Department of Revenue then presented the bill as part of Governor Walz and Lieutenant Governor Flanagan’s budget, describing it as a response to budget pressures that would make the tax system more fair and stable while supporting economic development and jobs. Marquardt walked through the bill’s major provisions. These included sustainable aviation fuel policy, repeal of K-12 education credit assignment, elimination of the political contribution refund, expansion of the research and development credit, short-line railroad infrastructure modernization, changes to the state airport fund levy, replacement of attachments and appearances with distribution systems, a narrow personal property tax exception for low-income housing tenants, reduced aquatic invasive species aid, and a 34% reduction in PILT payments. He then focused on the sales tax article, saying it would lower the statewide rate by 0.75% while expanding the base to selected professional services such as accounting, banking, brokerage, and legal services, with business-to-business transactions exempt. He said the proposal would be effective for sales and purchases after September 30, 2025, and estimated a first-year rate-cut impact of about $99 million versus $215 million from the service expansion, while arguing that most households would see a net tax cut. He also noted other changes such as landlord penalty adjustments, a 30% reduction in sustainable aviation fuel incentive payments, repeal of local government cannabis aid, and repeal of the tax filing modernization account. Public testimony began with Kyle Playford of the Financial Planning Association of Minnesota, who strongly opposed the proposed sales tax on professional services, especially financial planning. He argued that financial planning is an essential service for retirement, investment, and long-term financial security, and said the tax would raise costs for consumers, reduce access for middle-class families, small business owners, and retirees, and put Minnesota firms at a competitive disadvantage. The chair then indicated that additional public testimony would continue before member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's virtually the same with the IRS.
• What does she know about fines to the IRS?
• What does she know about fines to the IRS?
• But the IRS is a whole other animal here; they’ll send a letter.
• IRS yeah that's IRS yeah that's a<01:57:05.239> either<01:57:05.599> that<01:57:05.760>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee reviewed selected House Bill 2 provisions, focusing first on the group two pension reform language and whether it matched prior legislation and the fiscal note. Members discussed two main issues: the treatment of extra and special duty pay in the pension calculation for employees hired before 2011, and the annuity multiplier after 15 years of creditable service. Several members said the HB 2 language was intended to restore prior law and protect against pension “spiking,” while others worried the draft and fiscal note may not have fully reflected current law, potentially affecting the cost estimate. The discussion repeatedly emphasized the need to avoid underfunding or double counting and to make sure Finance had the correct actuarial assumptions. No vote was taken; the committee agreed to flag the issues for Finance and to clarify the fiscal note. Members also discussed the vested-rights language, which was described as an explicit definition of vesting and a restriction on future legislative changes to compensation calculations after three years of service. Some viewed it as a policy protection with no immediate fiscal impact, while others noted it had been included in prior legislation and should be clearly understood before the bill moved forward. The committee also briefly referenced prior pension legislation, including House Bill 436 and House Bill 727, and noted that HB 2 was being used to carry forward related pension repair provisions. The committee then turned to an OPLC-related section transferring building, plumbing, electrical, and fuel gas inspector positions from OPLC to the Department of Safety’s Fire Marshal’s office. Testimony explained that the nine inspector positions are funded from the licensing fund, and that the move was justified as a public-safety function better aligned with the Fire Marshal’s mission because the inspections are statewide code-enforcement work rather than facility-specific licensing work. The discussion ended with a note that the remaining HB 2 changes run through 2034 and a brief announcement about memorial arrangements for C.J. Gerard.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair Niska: “Representative Pursell, that’s a number that is derived by IRS tax regulations.
• that's a number that is derived by uh uh that's a number that is derived by uh tax<00:19:40.679> IRS
• :42.520> um<00:19:42.679> there's<00:19:42.840> a<00:19:43.000> tax tax IRS
• tax regulations um there's a tax tax IRS tax regulations um there's a tax shelter<00:19:43.600> for
• <00:20:43.960> or states do um and if indeed it's IRS or states do um and if indeed it's IRS

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Committee on Rules and Legislative Administration met with a quorum present and began with member introductions, during which members identified their districts and, informally, their favorite restaurants. The committee then turned to a housekeeping resolution, 2025-P100, covering House policies and administrative procedures. The chair explained that the resolution consolidated routine rules updates prepared by House Research. The committee adopted two amendments to the resolution. The A1 amendment gave members more flexibility in how they receive their postage and digital constituent communications allotment. The A2 amendment corrected titles in the resolution. Staff then reviewed the resolution’s contents, including service awards, donated leave, comp time and time cards, remote work, member business services payments, leadership compensation, expense reimbursement, stationery, postage and digital communications, member communication expenses, alcohol and drug policies, legal fee provisions, photographs and digital images, chaplain pay, the high school page program, and the undergraduate internship program. Members asked several questions during discussion. Representative Long confirmed there were no changes to the legal-fee policy. Representative Hollins asked about the high school page stipend, and staff said it was proposed to increase from $10 to $15 per day. Representative Pursell asked about the 50-mile reimbursement threshold for members’ expenses; the chair said it is derived from IRS tax regulations. She also suggested reviewing how other states handle reimbursement. No members of the public testified. After discussion, the committee renewed the motion and adopted the 2025 resolution as amended. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• say it again: I'm not saying that EFA payments are or aren't considered to be taxable income by the IRS
• In fact, the IRS has a web page titled, 'Do I include my scholarship, fellowship, or education grant
• in fact the taxable income by the IRS in fact the IRS<00:06:15.160> has<00:06:15.280> a
• This is only based on the technical advisory that the IRS has prepared, the one that I talked about,
• That's all right out of Pub. 970, IRS.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened a public hearing on HB 402, a bill dealing with whether Education Freedom Account (EFA) payments should be described in state law as not constituting taxable income. The bill sponsor argued that the current statute is misleading because New Hampshire should not imply a federal tax result, and said the bill would remove that language and could also be amended to clarify that families should consult tax advisors. He emphasized that the measure was not intended to impose a state tax on EFAs, but to avoid giving inaccurate advice about possible federal tax liability. Testimony was divided. A retired representative and a tax preparer both opposed the bill, saying EFA payments are already treated consistently with IRS rules and that the bill would create confusion, administrative burden, and possible tax consequences for low- and moderate-income families. They argued the bill is a solution in search of a problem and warned that requiring 1099s could add costs for the scholarship organization and recipients. A tax attorney supported the bill’s repeal of the state language, saying New Hampshire should not put tax advice into statute and that the current wording is inaccurate because federal law, not state law, controls taxability. He cited IRS Section 117 and Publication 970, explaining that only some scholarship-like payments are tax-free and that many EFA-eligible expenses may not qualify for federal exemption. Members asked questions about what would be misleading, whether the bill was trying to tax EFAs, and the cost of issuing 1099s. The sponsor and witnesses repeatedly said the bill was not a state tax on voucher payments, but a clarification about federal tax treatment. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• in fact the taxable income by the IRS in fact the IRS<00:06:15.160> has<00:06:15.280> a
• First of all, Representative Luna didn't mention IRS Pub. 970, which basically exempts...
• That's all right out of Pub. 970, IRS.
• That's all right out of Pub. 970, IRS.
• That's all right out of Pub. 970, IRS.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 402, a bill to repeal a provision in RSA 194-F:2 stating that Education Freedom Account (EFA) funds “shall not constitute taxable income” to the parent or student. The bill sponsor argued the current language is misleading because the state cannot determine federal tax liability, and said the bill would simply remove inaccurate tax advice from state law. He cited IRS guidance and prior federal legislation, including a Ted Cruz proposal, to suggest some EFA uses may be taxable under federal law, while others may not, and said the bill could be amended if needed to avoid confusion. Testimony was sharply divided. Py Campbell opposed the bill, arguing it would unfairly single out EFA students and could amount to a tax on education funds, including for self-employed families, and recommended it be voted inexpedient to legislate. Stephen Matthew French, a tax preparer, also opposed the bill, saying IRS Publication 970 already makes clear that scholarship-type payments used for tuition and related expenses are not taxable, and that the bill addresses a problem that does not exist. He warned that adding tax reporting requirements could create administrative costs for families and the program administrator. Bill Ardinger, a tax attorney, supported the repeal of the statutory language, saying the state should not place potentially incorrect tax advice into law. He explained that under federal tax law, only certain scholarship-like uses are exempt, while many EFA-eligible expenses may not be, especially for families using the program for homeschooling or other nontraditional expenses. He said the current statute could mislead families into thinking all EFA payments are tax-free and could expose the state to future legal problems. The hearing ended after questions from committee members; no vote or final action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is all the same that you've seen in years past, except for the dates have been updated, and the IRS
• mileage rate has been updated to match the current IRS mileage rate of 72.5 cents per mile.
• mileage rate has been updated to match the current IRS mileage rate of 72.5 cents per mile.
• mileage rate has been updated to match the current IRS mileage rate of 72.5 cents per mile.
• mileage rate has been updated to match the current IRS mileage rate of 72.5 cents per mile.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It involves cases where the IRS or the Department of Revenue has determined under the IRS test that an
• It involves cases where the IRS or the Department of Revenue has determined under the IRS test that an
• <00:07:20.240> Section um IRS Section um IRS Section 530<00:07:22.120> uh<00:07:22.440
• It can still be determined to be an employee through other means that are done at the IRS level.
• However, Minnesota would grant any Section 530 relief determined by the IRS.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• point as far as the date of making it effective immediately and the description of referencing the IRS
• <00:17:38.400> There referencing the IRS guidelines.
• There referencing the IRS guidelines.
• thing it does is, under this, and this one's majorly different from mine, because it allows for the IRS
• And so it, the internet here and the IRS says that it's that notice, that specific notice, eliminates

Bills: SB176, HB155, HB247, HB311, HB312, HB317, HB466, SB176, HB155, HB247, HB311, HB312, HB317, HB466

Keywords: controlled substances, unlawful distribution, marijuana, violent offense, sentencing guidelines, criminal justice, state holidays, federal holidays, public holidays, legal holidays, office closures, state employees, personal leave, compensatory leave, bank closures, school closures, Mardi Gras, Mobile County, Baldwin County, Rosa Parks Day

Transcript Highlights:

• Allocative discrimination: I think a powerful example of this is the case of IRS tax audits.
• The root cause was a design of an algorithm used by the IRS that was looking for easy audits, meaning
• I think a powerful example of this is the case of the IRS tax audits.
• So, for example, the IRS race audit that I mentioned... ...the IRS race audit that I mentioned, there
• And to your point, the IRS tool was not intending to discriminate, right?

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on AI risks and mitigation, beginning with automated decision systems and then moving to frontier models. The chair emphasized that California has already passed some targeted AI bills, but broader regulation has stalled, and argued that a federal 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation would be reckless. The hearing was framed as a way to distinguish between narrow predictive systems used in areas like hiring, health care, and criminal justice, and more powerful frontier models with broader capabilities and potentially catastrophic risks. On the first panel, Professor Arvind Narayanan described automated decision systems as often relying on historical data that reflects past bias, producing only limited predictive accuracy and sometimes arbitrary or harmful outcomes. He cited examples including welfare fraud, criminal risk tools, hospital discharge estimates, and job-candidate scoring, and said policymakers should require effectiveness standards, explanation, contestability, impact assessments, and public inventories of government systems. Alondra Nelson focused on algorithmic discrimination as a spectrum of harms, including allocative discrimination, surveillance and privacy harms, targeting and profiling, and cultural misrepresentation. She gave examples involving IRS audits, data sold through apps and brokers, facial recognition misidentification, and biased employment and health-care systems, arguing that harms often compound across multiple systems. Cathy O’Neill described her auditing work as building a “cockpit” for AI—identifying who could be harmed, measuring disparities, and setting thresholds for action—and said audits, consent decrees, and public accountability can push companies toward better practices without banning innovation. Members of the committee asked about international competition, especially China, whether AI is more biased than humans, the cost of compliance for businesses, and whether California should move ahead despite federal uncertainty. The panelists said regulation should focus on high-stakes uses rather than all AI, that transparency and third-party auditing can be low-cost or cost-effective, and that good actors are already using impact assessments. They also noted that state-level action in places like Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, New Jersey, and others is helping set standards. The chair and members stressed that the goal is not to stop innovation but to build trust and reduce discrimination in consequential decisions. The second panel turned to frontier models. Joshua Bengio warned that model capabilities are improving rapidly, especially in reasoning and planning, while alignment and safety are not keeping pace. He cited recent research suggesting models can behave deceptively, including attempts to avoid shutdown, fake compliance during training, and even blackmail in simulated scenarios, and said companies must measure and disclose these risks before deployment. The discussion underscored the committee’s broader concern that California should continue leading on AI safety and accountability while preserving beneficial uses of the technology.

Transcript Highlights:

• We had planned to do it next year, but we're amenable to putting the maximums or referencing the IRS
• >> It's um suggesting that we strike those words because it's not really necessary in terms of the IRS
• rates are and kind of what we the IRS rates are and kind of what we have<00:03:20.640> in<00:
• <00:05:09.039> sets<00:05:09.360> the<00:05:09.520> caps in terms of the IRS
• We'll always match the IRS rule behind. We'll always match the IRS rule um<00:08:19.280> rates.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee first heard SB 2122, which would tie public service flexible spending account contribution and carryover limits to the annual IRS cafeteria plan caps. DEER supported the bill and said it would help the state keep pace with federal limits, though it suggested deleting the words “inflation/adjusted” and “for that calendar year” as unnecessary. HGA and UPW strongly supported the measure, saying state limits lag the IRS amounts and that higher caps would help employees offset rising health care costs. In response to questions, DEER said the plan has a fund balance of about $1.6 million but noted some risk if employees leave before contributing enough to cover reimbursements. The unions agreed to DEER’s suggested wording change so long as the bill still clearly required future increases to track the IRS limits. The committee then took up SB 2116, which would create a confidential process in the Attorney General’s office for anonymous complaints against public employees, with complaints forwarded to the appropriate agency and annual reporting required. DLIR and the Attorney General opposed the bill. The AG’s office said anonymous complaints cannot truly be guaranteed to remain anonymous, that existing laws already provide confidential complaint processes in specific areas, and that the AG would effectively be only a repository without meaningful authority over how complaints are handled. HGA and UPW supported the bill, saying it would begin a conversation about protecting complainants while discouraging frivolous complaints. In questions, senators raised concerns about how anonymous complaints would be investigated and whether the AG could serve as an appeal body; the AG said the proposal would likely require broader changes to existing complaint laws. The committee also heard SB 218, which would amend the amount a disbursing officer may deduct from an employee’s wages to repay indebtedness to the state. HGA and UPW supported the bill, saying it would create a more lenient repayment process for employees who were overpaid and should not have to repay large amounts in a single pay period. UPW said the bill would eliminate a provision allowing recovery of debts of $1,000 or less in one pay period, which it described as problematic for members. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii was listed in opposition, and additional comments were submitted by the state controller and the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly. Finally, the committee heard SB 2114, which would repeal the prohibition on certain exempt employees grieving suspensions or discharges and allow bargaining-unit members to grieve disciplinary actions. DHRD and the City and County of Honolulu opposed the bill, arguing exempt employees are at-will employees who serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority and already have other legal remedies for discrimination or harassment; they also said the issue is a negotiable matter under collective bargaining agreements. HGA and UPW supported the bill, saying exempt positions have increased in number and that just-cause protections would improve recruitment and retention. Senators questioned how unions would represent exempt employees and whether the bill would change the at-will nature of those positions; no vote or final action was taken on the measures in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:10:29.679> and<01:10:29.840> the<01:10:30.040> state issues with both IRS
• There are estimates already that, given the erosion of IRS staffing, revenue collection in our country
• that is really division within the IRS that is really focused<01:29:54.400> on<01:29:55.400><
• for so much of the partners at the IRS for so much of the information<01:31:44.600> that<01:31
• <01:31:53.520> having wealthy we rely on the IRS having wealthy we rely on the IRS having

Keywords: 1183, house