Transcript Highlights:

• You get the opportunity to really answer questions and get feedback from people in the community as they

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Correctional Consolidation and Collaboration met at 10:07 a.m. and approved the minutes from its February 9 meeting. The commission said it would accept Department of Correction testimony in writing because of a scheduling issue, and then spent most of the hearing hearing from people with lived experience in county and state correctional settings. Members repeatedly reminded witnesses to keep remarks to about three minutes and focused the discussion on correctional consolidation, collaboration, programming, and reentry. Testimony from multiple sheriff’s offices was broadly supportive of county-based programming, treatment, education, and reentry services. Witnesses from Hampshire, Barnstable, Hampden, and Franklin counties described access to GED and college courses, vocational training, recovery meetings, therapeutic groups, housing and ID assistance, work release, and reentry centers. Several said these programs helped them gain sobriety, employment, family reunification, and parole readiness. Hampden County witnesses emphasized immediate reentry planning and individualized case management; Franklin County witnesses praised respectful treatment and an accessible off-site reentry center; Barnstable witnesses highlighted the women’s therapeutic treatment program, creative writing, and the Bridge Center; Hampshire witnesses described the Bridge House, work release, and transition supports. Several witnesses contrasted those experiences with what they described as limited or delayed programming in DOC facilities, especially for people serving longer sentences or with restrictive classifications. One witness said DOC programming was hard to access because shorter sentences and offense labels affected eligibility; another described overcrowding, little counseling, and no reentry planning in state prison. A juvenile lifer testified that classification barriers and lack of tailored programming left him feeling unprepared, and another witness said DOC’s handling of classification hearings and records was unfair and opaque. Some speakers also raised concerns about mental health care and visitation policies, especially at Framingham, where one witness said suicidal thoughts were met with inadequate responses and another said family visitation was denied without clear explanation. Commissioners asked follow-up questions about DOC access, step-down opportunities, family support, and whether more transitional housing or acclimation time before release would help. No formal votes were taken beyond approval of the prior minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• I was going to ask, from the fairest point of view, your feedback about that residential system in the

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission opened an informal discussion focused on developing recommendations for its September report on correctional consolidation and cooperation. Chairs Dan Hunt and Senator Brownsberger emphasized that the group is still in an information-gathering phase, but should begin putting ideas on the table, including possible written recommendations, further hearings, and additional facility tours. Members discussed whether the commission should seek more input from frontline stakeholders such as sheriffs, probation, parole, reentry centers, unions, and the judiciary, and whether recommendations should be organized around specific issue areas like medical costs, programming, reentry, and facility operations. A major theme was the need for a more integrated and consistent correctional system. Participants raised concerns about fragmentation across DOC, county sheriffs, probation, and parole, and suggested exploring step-down pathways, minimum security, pre-release, day reporting, and regional reentry hubs to improve outcomes and reduce recidivism. Several speakers stressed the importance of uniform standards, evidence-based programming, better data on outcomes and spending, and clearer alignment between custody conditions and rehabilitation goals. There was also discussion of looking to other states and international models, as well as revisiting older reports and plans, including the 2009 commission report and the 2010 corrections master plan. Facility-specific issues were also raised, including the need to examine women’s facilities such as Framingham, Bridgewater, and restrictive housing practices in light of suicide concerns and mental health needs. Members discussed the relationship between correctional custody and behavioral health, the role of the judiciary in sentencing and reentry planning, and whether judges should be better informed about available programming and step-down options. There was broad agreement that collaboration, transparency, and accountability should be strengthened, with some members urging that recommendations be based on firsthand facts and data rather than opinion alone. The meeting also included presentation of a written set of eight high-level recommendations compiled by advocacy and legal organizations, which focused on clearer and more consistent programming, equitable application of rules, and reducing punitive conditions that function like solitary confinement. The chairs said the document would be shared with members and posted online. No formal votes were taken during the discussion, and the meeting ended with plans to continue the conversation at a future session, including possible follow-up on reentry centers, restrictive housing, and other systemwide reforms.

Transcript Highlights:

• Edmondson was on there, and she can give you some feedback on how traumatic some of the testimony has

Bills: HB410, HR310, HR314, HR316, HR317, HR321, HR275, HR276, HR279, HR282, HR286, HR289, HR292, HR295, HR302, HR319, HR307, HR273, SCR59, SCR61, SCR62, SCR68, SCR69, SCR70, SCR54, SCR55, SCR64, SCR75, HCR32, HB776, HB42, HB119, HB159, HB302, HB1017, HB1028, SB217, SB283, HB953, SB208, HR74, HB998, HB901, HR20, HCR65, HCR71, HCR98, HB284, HB306, HB341, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB603, HB605, HB614, HB625, HB646, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB798, HB911, HB955, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1191, HB1240, HB1255, SB82, SB89, SB97, SB123, SB237, HB36, HB74, HB75, HB258, HB259, HB414, HB459, HB784, HB848, HB956, HB1095, HB1220, HB1252, SB469, SB479

Keywords: recording, privacy, notification, direct conversation, law enforcement, first responder, penalties, oil and gas, orphan wells, inactive wells, shut-in wells, marginal wells, plugging and abandonment, well decommissioning, site remediation, site restoration, Oilfield Site Restoration, OSR program, financial security, bonding

Transcript Highlights:

• I welcome your feedback and hope that we can continue an open, transparent, and inclusive process by

Bills: SB116, SB121, SB130, SB407

Keywords: redistricting, congressional districts, Louisiana, 2020 census, elections, precincts, voting, election, political representation, 2026 precincts, demographics, Louisiana congressional map, U.S. House, election districts, precinct shapefiles, Voting Districts, VTD, 2020 Census, 2026 Precinct Shapefiles, apportionment

Transcript Highlights:

• state-funded ways to really target that goal of, because I know that that also came back in the feedback

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the March 4, 2026 minutes, and received a lengthy Department of Public Instruction presentation from Stanley Schauer Jr. on North Dakota student performance data in math and ELA, with comparisons between students with disabilities and students without disabilities. Schauer explained the assessment systems used, the 1% alternate assessment cap for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, the absence of 2019-20 data due to the pandemic, and how state standards are set by North Dakota educators. Members asked about cohort trends, the role of alternate assessments, grade-level patterns, and whether the state should focus more on reducing the novice category than on moving students from approaching to proficient. Schauer also discussed the new NDA Plus assessment, the state’s planned growth model, and the possibility of future breakdowns by disability category or by schools using science-of-math approaches. Special education educators testified that students with disabilities continued to receive services during COVID because of FAPE obligations, which likely helped limit learning loss, and emphasized that IEP teams focus on individual growth rather than only proficiency buckets. Committee members then shifted to special education funding and possible funding models. Brandon Bombach of Grand Forks Public Schools presented on the state aid formula, focusing on the special education weighting factor and arguing that the current formula does not adequately respond to growing student needs because it counts enrollment but does not adjust when the number of students with IEPs rises. He used examples to show that a district can have the same enrollment and receive the same weighting even if the number of students needing services increases. Members discussed whether the formula should be tied more closely to actual need and accountability, and the chair indicated that the committee would continue gathering data and ideas for a later meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• there's some state-funded ways to really target that goal, because I know that also came back in the feedback

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes and then received a lengthy DPI presentation from Stanley Schauer on statewide reading and math assessment data for students with and without disabilities. He explained the assessment systems used over time, the absence of 2019-20 data, and how North Dakota’s standards are set by educators. Members asked about alternate assessments, cohort trends, the apparent drop in proficiency in higher grades, and the new NDA+ assessment. Schauer emphasized that the biggest pattern in the data was the relative stability of students with disabilities, the post-pandemic drop and partial recovery, and the need to focus on reducing the novice category. He also said the state plans to revisit high school standard setting and that future data could be broken out by program, disability category, and schools using science-of-math or other initiatives. Public testimony from special education staff suggested that the flat performance of students with disabilities during COVID likely reflected continued services and intensive supports, and committee members discussed whether the current disparity goal is realistic and whether growth measures would be more useful than simple proficiency buckets. After the presentation, the committee took a short break and then moved into discussion of special education funding models. Chair Richter said members should contact Schauer directly with ideas for additional data views and noted that the committee would continue its work on funding and possible model changes. Brandon Bomback of Grand Forks Public Schools began a presentation arguing that the special education funding formula, especially the weighting factor, should be reconsidered if the committee wants a system that better reflects accountability and student needs. He said his comments were based on the perspective of a larger district and focused on the special education weighting factor rather than other parts of the formula. The remainder of his presentation was not included in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Not a list of feedback with Housing California.

Summary: The committee heard a long housing agenda with several bills presented before quorum was established. AB 1725, as amended, would require disclosure of nearby oil wells and methane monitoring issues in a specific district; the author and community witnesses described serious health and safety risks in Vista Hermosa Heights, while the California Apartment Association, California Building Industry Association, and California Chamber of Commerce opposed, arguing the bill targeted the wrong industry and that the state should instead fix abandoned wells directly. AB 2110, a local finance tool to create tax increment districts for workforce housing for education, health care, manufacturing, and public safety workers, drew no witnesses in support or opposition and was presented as a way to help workers live closer to jobs. AB 1732 would expand CEQA streamlining for public university and college housing projects; UC and several housing and labor groups supported it, while housing advocates raised concerns about amendments affecting existing 100% affordable housing exemptions. AB 1771, amended into a study bill, would direct HCD to report on the long-standing resident manager requirement for apartment buildings with 16 or more units; the rental housing industry supported studying the issue, while the chair emphasized the need to consider tenant protections and the impact on current resident managers before changing the law. The committee also heard AB 2185, which would direct state affordable housing programs to update guidelines to better support factory-built housing; it drew broad support from housing, labor, technology, and local government groups, with no opposition. AB 2748 would delay new EV-readiness requirements for 100% affordable housing developments, keeping the prior 40% standard through 2035; supporters said the higher standard would add significant costs and threaten project feasibility, while clean air and transportation advocates argued the code changes are modest, important for equity, and should not be rolled back. Members split along those lines, with some emphasizing housing production and others urging more public subsidy for EV infrastructure rather than delaying the code. SB 417, a proposed $10 billion affordable housing bond for the November ballot, received extensive support from housing organizations, local governments, labor, and business groups, but Habitat for Humanity and the Los Angeles mayor’s office asked for specific allocations for CalHome and interim housing; the bill was ultimately moved to Appropriations on an 8-0 vote, with members noting ongoing negotiations over funding priorities. Finally, AB 1740 would create an urban multimodal community designation for Santa Monica, allowing local approval of certain low-impact coastal-zone activities—such as some housing, bike and bus lanes, outdoor dining, and building changes—without Coastal Commission review. The author and Santa Monica officials said the bill would reduce delays and uncertainty for infill housing and local economic recovery while preserving protections for sensitive coastal resources; supporters included housing, business, and city groups. The Coastal Commission and environmental organizations opposed, saying the bill would carve out broad exemptions, weaken public access and appeal rights, and bypass the local coastal program process that Santa Monica has not completed. Committee members debated the Commission’s role, with some criticizing it for opposing legislation and others arguing the bill was a common-sense way to modernize coastal permitting. A motion and second were made on AB 1740, and the bill was left pending with the committee’s action to be taken when appropriate.

Transcript Highlights:

• Not a lot of feedback with Housing California.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• stakeholders, and all those who have engaged with us throughout the process and provided valuable feedback

Summary: The committee heard a long series of bills, beginning with AB 2026 on groundwater recharge. The author and supporters said the bill would streamline permitting for recharge projects, codify long-standing CEQA exemptions for flood diversions to recharge, and add tribal consultation and other guardrails. Water agencies and local districts supported the measure as a way to capture high-flow water and reduce groundwater subsidence, while environmental groups and some irrigation districts opposed it, warning that the bill’s exemptions and broader diversion authority could harm rivers, Delta resources, and public trust values. The bill was discussed but not voted on because the committee lacked a quorum at that point. The committee then took up AB 1577 on data center energy accountability, which would require monthly reporting of energy-use data and permit-related estimates of energy and water demand. The author and the Little Hoover Commission argued the bill would improve transparency, help protect ratepayers, and give regulators better information for grid planning. Data center industry representatives opposed it as duplicative, burdensome, and uniquely targeted, while local governments, environmental groups, and some utilities supported it or supported it if amended. The bill was later reported out with a due pass recommendation once a quorum was established. Members also heard AB 2245 on a producer responsibility program for lubricant products and containers, AB 2170 on CEQA language-access and environmental review protections for overburdened communities, AB 2059 on rural transportation and VMT mitigation, AB 1808 on Western Joshua tree permitting and fee relief, AB 2182 on industrial energy efficiency program changes, and AB 2231 on streamlining two hospital projects. Testimony was mixed on most of these bills: supporters emphasized affordability, local control, environmental justice, or project urgency, while opponents raised concerns about CEQA scope, regulatory duplication, costs, and environmental impacts. Several measures received due pass recommendations and roll-call votes, including AB 2170, AB 2059, AB 1808, AB 2182, and AB 2231, with some members voting no or not voting and some bills left open for absent members.

Transcript Highlights:

• stakeholders, and all those who have engaged with us throughout the process and provided valuable feedback

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to start by thanking the chair and the committee staff and stakeholders for their feedback and

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're starting to get a little bit of feedback. Thank you.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Free Conference Committee on the 2026 General Assembly budget met to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of House Bill 500. Leaders opened by thanking the other chamber’s work, asking members to turn microphones on and off to avoid feedback, and stressing the need to clearly note decision points so both chambers record the same actions. Staff then walked through the bill page by page, explaining that the committee was comparing only House and Senate differences, not the governor’s proposed budget. The discussion covered a wide range of appropriations and language items, including next generation non-911 services, school safety reporting tools, restored funding for brain injury, epilepsy, veteran service, homeless veterans, and rocket docket programs, debt service changes, rural infrastructure, disaster aid caps, Attorney General and Medicaid fraud funding, agriculture and county fair grants, auditor and pension-related appropriations, school facilities and SEEK funding, and numerous education programs. Members also discussed charter-related funding such as Star Academy, Dolly Parton Imagination Library, school resource officers, school-based mental health providers, AP/IB exams, Governor’s Scholars and Entrepreneurs, and several pilot or initiative programs in economic development, energy, and labor. Several items were described as technical corrections or restorations of language and funding, while others reflected differences in amounts or how funds would be distributed. There were several questions and comments from members about wording such as “implement and carry out,” the absence of the governor’s budget from the comparison document, and whether SEEK funding should be tied to teacher raises. The chair and other members emphasized that the committee’s role was to reconcile the two chambers’ budgets, not to adopt the governor’s proposal. Members also raised concerns about opioid settlement funds and the Dolly Parton Imagination Library match rate, with one senator urging restoration of the House language. No final vote or formal action was taken in the portion provided; the meeting primarily consisted of explanation, questions, and discussion of proposed budget differences.

Transcript Highlights:

• You get the opportunity to really answer questions and get feedback from people in the community as they

Summary: The Special Commission on Correctional Consolidation and Collaboration met to approve prior minutes and then heard extensive testimony from people incarcerated or formerly incarcerated in county and state facilities, along with a few family/community perspectives. Much of the testimony focused on how county sheriff programs, reentry services, and step-down placements helped people obtain education, treatment, work experience, housing, IDs, and support for sobriety and family reunification. Witnesses from Hampshire, Barnstable, Hampden, and Franklin counties repeatedly described these programs as life-changing and credited staff with treating them with dignity, helping them prepare for release, and connecting them to community resources. Several witnesses contrasted county programming favorably with their experiences in DOC custody, saying DOC facilities often had overcrowding, limited access to programs, long waits, and little individualized reentry planning. Some said their sentence length or classification status made them ineligible for needed programs, while others described county facilities as more responsive and rehabilitative. A few witnesses also highlighted the value of culturally specific programming, educational blocks, restorative justice, and employment training. One witness from Hampden County described All-Exclusive Support Services as pivotal to her recovery and later employment with the sheriff’s office; another from Franklin County said the reentry center’s outside location made it easier to access help after release. Not all testimony was uniformly positive. A witness from Framingham described serious mental health needs that were not adequately addressed, saying she was offered superficial coping tools instead of counseling and that visitation restrictions for family members worsened her mental health. Another witness, a juvenile lifer, said long sentences and classification barriers limited access to meaningful programming and delayed preparation for release. Commissioners asked follow-up questions about DOC programming access, reentry preparation, visitation policies, and whether people were ready to benefit from services. No formal votes or policy actions were taken beyond approving the prior meeting minutes and moving through the testimony agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• Before turning it over to the other testifiers, I wanted to close by sharing some feedback from some

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, we have the A2 amendment, and I wanted to make sure that we brought this because we got some feedback

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• this time frame, and we are obviously in our last committee, but there is still time to receive feedback

Summary: The Appropriations Committee considered a large agenda of bills and reported several measures favorably. Early action included SB 6, a settled claim bill involving the Department of Children and Families and a trust for Leila Estrada and Sapphire Williams, and CS/CS/SB 1266, which creates a cybersecurity experiential learning and clearance-readiness program through the Department of Commerce and Cyber Florida. The committee also approved SB 532 on clerks of court funding, allowing clerks to retain all excess Article V revenue rather than returning half to the state and clarifying foreclosure sale procedures. In addition, the committee passed CS/CS/SB 1602 and CS/CS/SB 1604 to create and fund a pilot housing program for veterans through the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, and CS/SB 1110 to expand Medicaid and private insurance coverage for medically necessary orthotics and prosthetics, including testimony from affected families and advocates. The committee also adopted an amendment and then favorably reported CS/CS/SB 1012 on inmate services, removing the bill’s medical-services compensation provisions while retaining changes to the inmate welfare trust fund and related facility uses. It also adopted a delete-all amendment and then favorably reported CS/CS/CS/SB 1614, which was narrowed to remove a provision allowing local governments to use excess fees to construct new buildings. The committee spent substantial time on CS/SB 17, a Medicaid oversight and transparency bill. The sponsor said the measure would create a joint legislative Medicaid oversight committee, authorize the Legislature to retain its own actuary, modernize Medicaid statutes, strengthen managed-care performance standards, and increase accountability for pharmacy benefit managers and related entities. After amendment, the committee adopted changes removing several PBM-related provisions while retaining the broader oversight framework. Testimony from supporters emphasized transparency, fraud prevention, and cost control, while a PBM trade association asked to continue working on affiliate-manufacturer, network, and payment issues. The bill was reported favorably. The most extensive discussion centered on CS/SB 1758, which proposes major changes to Medicaid and SNAP. The sponsor described five reforms: stronger fraud and overpayment recovery authority, a Medicaid work requirement for certain able-bodied adults, expanded behavioral-health services through Medicaid waivers, pharmacy-program changes to obtain rebates and reduce institutional costs, and SNAP/EBT reforms including photo IDs and work requirements. The committee adopted two amendments: one adding a transitional “glide path” for people who gain employment but risk losing Medicaid, and another exempting hospice patients with six months or less to live. Supporters argued the bill would reduce fraud, improve accountability, and encourage work, while opponents warned it would increase administrative burdens, push eligible people off coverage, and conflict with federal law or guidance. The bill remained under debate with extensive public testimony from advocates, providers, and affected families, and the transcript ends before final disposition on the measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• this time frame, and we are obviously in our last committee, but there is still time to receive feedback

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I have two concerns about the amendment that I want to run past you for feedback.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• What have you been seeing out in the field, and if you have any feedback for us as we consider potential

Summary: The committee first heard Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horn’s annual State of Education address, which focused on school safety, academic outcomes, school choice, teacher pay, and opposition to DEI/CRT in schools and teacher preparation. Horn said the department has expanded school police officers, promoted Project Momentum and tutoring, supported cell phone restrictions in classrooms, and pushed for more phonics-based reading instruction and stronger university teacher-prep programs. Members questioned him about DEI complaints, cell phone implementation, ESA oversight, school safety funding, reading proficiency, and teacher compensation; Horn said ESA spending is reviewed and recovered when inappropriate, and argued teacher raises should come directly to teachers, not through districts. No formal action was taken on his presentation. The committee then considered HB 2008, which would prohibit public school libraries from using public funds to pay dues to professional library associations. Sponsor Representative Cooper argued the bill would keep school libraries politically neutral and prevent taxpayer money from supporting ideological advocacy, while saying membership itself would still be allowed if paid privately. Opponents, including a former librarian, a school board member, and the ACLU of Arizona, said the bill would undermine professional development, local control, literacy support, and constitutional rights of association and petition. Supporters said associations promote ideological content and that free professional-development alternatives exist. After public testimony and debate, the committee voted to return HB 2008 with a do-pass recommendation.

Transcript Highlights:

• meetings, and board hearings, staff publicly posted materials and open comment dockets to solicit feedback

Summary: The hearing was a select committee discussion on the transportation costs and impacts of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with opening remarks from the co-chairs and members emphasizing affordability, climate goals, and the need to explain the program’s benefits to the public. The first panel from CARB and the California Energy Commission described how LCFS works as a market-based, declining carbon-intensity program that rewards lower-carbon fuels, supports zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and is intended to reduce greenhouse gases and local air pollution. They argued the program has driven billions in private investment, increased alternative fuel use, and that LCFS credit prices are not the main driver of retail gasoline prices, which they said are dominated by crude oil, refining, and distribution costs. Members questioned the panel on the gap between the regulatory target and actual carbon-intensity performance, the role of credit banking, which fuels are generating the most credits, how the 2025 amendments affected the program, and whether LCFS credits are truly additional. CARB explained that banking helps cost-effectiveness and investment certainty, that ethanol, renewable diesel, and biodiesel currently provide the largest volumes while electricity is expected to grow, and that the updated targets were informed by the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goals and the 2030 scoping plan. The Energy Commission said its data show environmental programs add some cost to gasoline but do not drive price volatility, which is mainly tied to crude oil and refinery margins. The second panel, featuring academic and research experts, focused on program design, out-of-state credit generation, and broader economic effects. Speakers said LCFS is successful because it ties incentives to emissions benefit, uses life-cycle analysis, and allows flexible compliance that lowers costs compared with more direct regulation. They also said the program’s benefits generally outweigh costs, that it can reduce air pollution disparities and support equity, but that some issues—especially indirect land use change, additionality, and older program assumptions—need more research and may warrant future rulemaking. One researcher noted that while LCFS likely raises gasoline prices somewhat, the effect is uncertain by design and usually smaller than normal market fluctuations, and another warned that limiting credit generation too narrowly could create legal and efficiency problems.