Transcript Highlights:

• Any questions or discussion?
• Any questions or discussion?
• Any questions or discussion?
• Discussion? Chair votes aye.
• Discussion?

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Housing met on February 6, 2025, first in a joint session with the Committee on Labor and Technology. The joint committees heard SB 1235, which would create a Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation program for government employee housing, including a revolving fund and a leasehold rent-to-own program. Testimony was generally supportive from HHFDC, the Department of Budget and Finance, and UPW, with one testifier opposing the bill because it was limited to state workers and should be broader. The committees recommended passage with amendments, including technical changes, $450,000 for two positions, removal of an income restriction, and clarification that leasehold and day-one projects are eligible; both committees adopted the recommendation unanimously, and the joint meeting adjourned. The Housing Committee then took up SB 67, SB 1133, and SB 1333. SB 67 would bar inclusionary zoning requirements on certain housing offered for sale or rent to qualifying residents, and it received support from HHFDC, the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, and others; the committee recommended passage with technical amendments and adopted it. SB 1133 would allow counties to set rent increase limits tied to CPI and create a long-term residential lease tax credit; testimony included support from the Department of Taxation and opposition from Hawaii Realtors, NAIOP Hawaii, and the Tax Foundation, which warned about rent-control consequences. The committee recommended passage with amendments that made the credit nonrefundable, allowed limited carry-forward, restricted claims in certain family-lease situations, set filing deadlines, and applied the measure to disaster-affected counties; the recommendation was adopted. SB 1333 would allow certain counties to use surcharge revenues for transportation and housing infrastructure and extend the surcharge period. DBEDT, OPSD, HCDA, county officials, and the Grassroot Institute supported the bill, while the Tax Foundation opposed it, arguing temporary taxes were becoming permanent. The committee recommended passage with technical amendments, and members noted concerns that prior surcharge revenues had not produced enough housing projects, which were to be reflected in the committee report. Finally, the committee deferred SB 834 indefinitely because it had already been deferred indefinitely by the Hawaiian Affairs Committee, and the Housing Committee adjourned after completing its agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any discussion?"
• If you heard that, any discussion on the Shope floor amendment?
• Any discussion on the Kavanaugh amendment? Senator Ortiz. Mr.
• “Any other discussion before we go to your closing comments?”
• Any other discussion? Seeing none.

Summary: The Senate met in floor session, began with prayer and the Pledge, approved the journal, received communications, and handled a return of Senate Bill 1456 from the House for reconsideration. Members then moved through several Committee of the Whole calendars, considering and amending bills on court fees, information technology, environmental quality, agricultural property inspections, property tax notices, veterans services, zoning and electric generation siting, fuel and gas resilience, and disturbing religious services. Several amendments were adopted, including changes to HB 2265 on criminal court fees, HB 2311 on conversational AI disclosures and privacy limits, HB 2986 on environmental quality/fuel resilience, HB 2104 and HB 2105 on agricultural property inspection rules, HB 2406 on veterans services, HB 2494 on electric generation siting and environmental compatibility, HB 2696 on fuel and gas prices, and HB 4117 on interference with religious services. Most of these bills were reported out of committee with do pass recommendations, though members raised concerns on HB 2311 and HB 4117 about privacy, free speech, and prosecutorial discretion. The chamber then took up a long series of third readings and final votes. Bills passed included HB 2015 on single-audit compliance, HB 2041 on child neglect and poverty factors, HB 2048 on AHCCCS prescription drug coverage, HB 2417 on excessive speed, HB 2611 on child welfare, HB 2793 on annexation, HB 2950 on special districts, HB 2995 on family law, HB 4018 on county officers, HB 2404 on mental health services, HB 2279 on limitations of actions, HB 2502 on the state retirement system, HB 2733 and HB 2953 on pharmacy regulation, HB 2979 on credit unions, HB 4042 on parent-child relationship determinations, HB 4010 on health professional regulatory boards, HB 4043 on public schools, HB 4049 on the Attorney General, HB 2265 on court fees, HB 2311 on information technology, and HB 2986 on environmental quality. HB 2601 on state highways and routes failed. Several members explained votes on bills involving fiscal impacts, child welfare, road safety, annexation, and criminal justice concerns. The Senate also adopted a group concurrence motion on several conference committee reports, including HB 2003, HB 2010, HB 2133, and HB 2874, and then voted on those measures. HB 2003 on driver’s license instruction permits, HB 2010 on advertising, HB 2133 on disclosure of sexual material and synthetic depictions, and HB 2874 on campaign committees and termination statements were all advanced after conference committee action, with debate on HB 2133 focusing on First Amendment and content-moderation concerns. The session ended with introduction of a large package of transportation-related appropriations bills and a motion to suspend certain committee notice rules for Appropriations to hear legislation and strike-everything amendments on short notice.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:04:06.800><c> a</c> 409, which we thoroughly discussed a 409, which we thoroughly discussed a
• </c><00:22:45.760><c> the</c> Um would anyone like to discuss the Um would anyone like to discuss the
• </c> Uh any further discussion on this? Uh any further discussion on this?
• &gt;&gt; With that any further discussion? &gt;&gt; With that any further discussion?
• this</c><00:28:28.280><c> earlier,</c> So, when we discussed this earlier, So, when we discussed this

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 409 in executive session, with the chair noting a caucus break to explain amendments to several substitute members. Members discussed a proposed amendment to narrow the bill’s felony provisions by limiting them to specific, knowingly dangerous conduct rather than making the offense too broad. The committee also noted a planned floor amendment to add missing “or” language to clarify that the listed acts were alternatives, not cumulative requirements. The amendment was adopted 13-0, and the bill as amended was then reported OTPA by a 13-0 vote. It was initially said to be headed to consent, but members later agreed it would not go on consent because a floor amendment was anticipated. The committee then opened House Bill 667, which would extend protections for medical personnel into emergency room settings. Supporters said the bill was needed because emergency room staff face increasing assaults and existing protections did not fully cover ER circumstances. Several members described firsthand or secondhand incidents involving nurses, EMTs, and other staff being threatened or injured, and argued that stronger penalties would help deter violence and improve prosecution. Others supported the bill but raised concerns about how it might affect people experiencing mental health crises, dementia, or intellectual and developmental disabilities. A proposed amendment from Representative Sher would exempt people experiencing a mental health crisis who have a mental health diagnosis, and also address dementia and certain developmental disabilities. Supporters said the amendment was narrowly tailored and had backing from the Disability Rights Center, NAMI New Hampshire, and the New Hampshire Nurses Association. Opponents argued that the criminal justice system already has safeguards such as prosecutorial discretion, insanity defenses, and competency rules, and warned against creating special exceptions that could weaken equal application of the law. After debate, the committee voted 10-3 to report HB 667 ought to pass, with members noting that minority and majority reports would be prepared.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any further discussion from the committee?
• Any discussion on the motion?
• Any discussion on the motion? Would you like to speak to that? I’d like to discuss my motion.
• Okay, committee, is there any further discussion?
• I was in a discussion.

Summary: The committee began with routine business, approving the March 12 and March 17, 2026 minutes. It then heard House Bill 927, which would restore consequences for unpaid moving violations by requiring the DMV to notify drivers with delinquent traffic fines and giving them 60 days to pay, while preserving limited driving privileges for work and medical emergencies and excluding parking, cycling, and jaywalking violations. The sponsor and supporters, including the Idaho Fraternal Order of Police and AAA, argued the bill would improve public safety and accountability and help address more than $23 million in unpaid traffic debt; opponents said collection agencies and existing tools were preferable and raised concerns about license-related penalties. After debate, a substitute motion to hold the bill in committee passed, so HB 927 was not advanced. The committee next considered House Bill 508, a follow-up to prior bicycle/pedestrian facility legislation. The bill would clarify that federal grants or funds may be used for highway projects involving bike or pedestrian improvements and would limit a violation provision to elected officials rather than consultants. After questions about how the underlying law works, the committee rejected a motion to hold the bill and instead voted to send HB 508 to the floor with a due pass recommendation. Senate Bill 1424 followed, a measure to close Idaho’s direct-to-consumer vehicle sales model to new manufacturers while grandfathering existing manufacturer-owned dealerships. Supporters framed it as a response to Chinese economic and national security threats and argued it would protect Idaho’s franchise dealer system; opponents, including Scout Motors and the Electrification Coalition, said it would harm American startups and consumer choice. Despite concerns about federal preemption and impacts on future direct-sales companies, the committee voted to send SB 1424 to the floor with a due pass recommendation. Finally, the committee took up House Bills 666 and 717, both aimed at requiring new Idaho residents to register vehicles and obtain Idaho licenses within a set time. HB 666 would have imposed a 30-day deadline, but members raised enforcement and fairness concerns and moved it to the 14th order for possible amendment. HB 717, an amended version, was also sent to the 14th order for possible amendment, but the roll call failed, leaving the bill held in committee. The meeting ended with thanks to members and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any further discussion?
• Any discussion? House Bill 1941, 2279, and 1681 be voted do pass. Any discussion.
• Any discussion? House Bill 2365 be voted do pass. Any discussion?
• Any discussion?
• Any discussion?

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion?
• Any<00:15:53.640><c> discussion?</c> Any discussion? Any discussion? Chair.
• Any discussion? discussion? discussion? Chair<01:05:33.680><c> votes</c><01:05:34.000><c> aye.
• Any<01:22:39.160><c> discussion?</c> Any discussion? Any discussion?
• Any discussion? discussion? discussion? Chair<01:22:56.680><c> votes</c><01:22:56.960><c> aye.

Bills: SB2706, SB2320

Keywords: workforce development, agriculture, biosecurity, pilot program, Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, University of Hawaii, Leeward Community College, DHRD, training, apprenticeship, career pathways, credentialing, job training, internship, hands-on experience, state employment, workforce pipeline, agricultural jobs, biosecurity jobs, general fund appropriation

Summary: The committees first heard SB 2371, which would prioritize lease offers on agrivoltaics parcels for beginning farmers, require annual compliance reports to DAB, authorize penalties for noncompliance, and allow solar facilities on certain agricultural lands. DAB, the State Energy Office, PUC, and Hawaii Farm Bureau generally supported the intent, while OPPSD recommended amendments to preserve agricultural lease affordability and strengthen food-production language. Members questioned whether the bill would meaningfully encourage solar on ag lands, whether beginning farmers would have enough information to use such parcels, and how the bill would interact with Land Use Commission review. The Farm Bureau said agrivoltaics remains challenging and largely in pilot form, and noted the Mililani project as a promising example of dual use. The committees voted to pass SB 2371 with amendments, with one member expressing a preference that it be opened to all farmers rather than only beginning farmers. The next measure, SB 2800, appropriates funds to DAB, DLNR, and ADC for acquisition, repair, and maintenance of irrigation systems. All testifying agencies and the Farm Bureau supported the bill, and members pressed them for estimates of needed funding and the condition of existing systems. DAB cited major repair needs, including Waimea, Molokai, Kahuku, and Kawailoa, and said its backlog could total roughly $65 million; ADC estimated about $35 million for several systems; and DLNR said its current needs for three systems were about $35 million, with the largest cost tied to piping in Kekaha. The committees amended the bill to defer its effective date to July 1, 2050 and to blank out the appropriation amounts in the bill text, with the agencies’ requested amounts to be included in the committee report for consideration. SB 2800 then passed in AEN, Water and Land, and EIG. The final measure discussed was SB 2718, a food hub pilot program beginning in 2028 that would require state departments and UH to source 30% of certain food purchases from local agricultural products, create a nutrition- and ʻāina-based school program, and have DAT partner with a regional aggregator for Native Hawaiian staple crops. DAT, DOH, the Farm Bureau, Food Plus Policy Group, HAPA, and others supported the bill’s intent, while the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation opposed it, saying it is already struggling to meet the current local procurement percentage and faces procurement and quantity barriers, especially for staple items used daily. The testimony focused on whether agencies could realistically meet the higher local purchasing target and whether smaller farms could supply the needed volumes.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> more discussion to come. more discussion to come.
• </c> um discussion um discussion full<00:30:50.560><c> hearings</c><00:30:51.240><c> in</c><00:30:51.440
• Further discussion to the call.
• </c><00:45:58.040><c> that</c> discussion about that proposal that discussion about that proposal that
• </c> is, but be a bill that we can discuss is, but be a bill that we can discuss and<00:46:07.880><c>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay.<00:15:56.079><c> Further</c><00:15:56.560><c> discussion.
• Further discussion. Uh recognize Okay. Further discussion.
• Well, that was discussed.
• ,</c><00:34:59.680><c> PEL</c> the bill that's being discussed, PEL the bill that's being discussed,
• 11.760><c> most</c><00:48:12.000><c> recent</c> discussion regarding the most recent discussion regarding

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• One of the concerns that I have, I'll just open up the discussion here, is we just, in 2021, created
• up</c><00:01:49.240><c> the</c> I'll open I'll just open up the I'll open I'll just open up the discussion
• So every time that we get into the weeds sidebarring compact, which I know there was some discussion,
• What we're discussing is whether an exam exists or not. Thank God we don't write them, right?
• I think you're looking at a tremendous amount of board work and discussion.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard House Bill 2712, which would remove the exam requirement for licensure as a Licensed Social Work Associate (LSWA). Members expressed concern that the exam requirement was only added in 2021 and has not been in place long enough to evaluate, but they also questioned whether licensure should be granted without a meaningful measure of competency. Testimony was split: supporters argued the exam is a barrier for applicants without formal social work education, while opponents said licensure should still require some standard of competency, especially because the title carries public expectations and insurance reimbursement implications. Karina Bonia, speaking for NASW New Hampshire, said there is very limited data because only one person in New Hampshire currently holds an LSWA. She explained that LSWA applicants may have degrees outside social work, unlike licensed social workers, and that the current exam is the same national social work exam used for higher levels of licensure. She argued that this creates a significant barrier for LSWA applicants and noted that LSWA holders are already required to complete 30 hours of training and substantial supervised hours. Members asked for data on pass/fail rates and whether a different exam or practical skills test would be more appropriate. Committee members and OPLC representatives discussed whether the current statute and board rules already provide enough authority for the board to set other criteria, and whether the exam requirement is tied to the social work compact. OPLC indicated that the current rule requires passage of a national proctored exam approved by the board, but that no national exam exists specifically for this level, and that the board may need legislative authority to develop different criteria. The discussion ended with interest in obtaining the existing rule language and possibly revisiting the issue through amendment or future legislation rather than immediately removing the exam requirement.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> &gt;&gt; Any further discussion? &gt;&gt; Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion?
• I discussions.
• </c> &gt;&gt; Any further discussion on L001? &gt;&gt; Any further discussion on L001?

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The committee has discussed this in previous hearings this year.
• There will be kind of continual discussions.
• There will be kind of continual discussions.
• As one of my friends when I was discussing this said, it's like a reverse Robin Hood.
• We appreciate the discussion under issue four as well.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any discussion?
• Is there any discussion?
• Is there any discussion?
• Is there any discussion?
• Is there any discussion?

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The House convened with prayer, roll call, and a quorum present, then took up several procedural motions, including suspending House rules for three legislative days and replacing conference committee members on Senate Bill 2282 and SCR 4007. The chamber also recognized visiting student groups from Grafton/Pleasant Valley and Shiloh School. Later, the House agreed to several conference committee reports and moved a number of measures through final passage or final disposition. House Bill 1428, which would have created a sales tax exemption for clothing sold by thrift stores or nonprofit corporations, drew extensive debate over tax policy, revenue loss, and possible conflicts with streamlined sales tax rules. Supporters argued it would help lower-income shoppers and nonprofit thrift stores, while opponents said it created an unfair advantage and could reduce state and local revenue. The conference report was adopted, but the bill ultimately failed on final vote, 37-54. House Bill 1440, relating to cigar lounges, was amended in conference and then passed 75-17. House Bill 1460, concerning adult foster care for private-pay adults, electronic monitoring, and a legislative study, was also adopted and passed overwhelmingly, 91-1. The House then passed Senate Bill 2224, which revises gaming commission structure and gaming stamp requirements, adds Attorney General enforcement provisions, and includes a $25,000 general fund appropriation, by a vote of 88-0. Senate Bill 2327, which expands uses of the agriculture diversification and development fund and appropriates $15 million to it, passed 74-17 after a member was excused from voting due to a personal interest. Senate Bill 2267, creating a regulatory framework for on-site wastewater treatment systems and shifting licensing authority to the Department of Environmental Quality, passed 82-10, and Senate Bill 2276, addressing joint water resource boards for cross-county projects, passed 90-1. The most contentious debate centered on Senate Bill 2160, which would move the state employee health plan from grandfathered status to a non-grandfathered ACA-compliant plan and appropriate about $6.6 million for the transition. Supporters said it would give the PERS board more flexibility, expand preventive and other benefits, and potentially slow premium growth without charging employees premiums. Opponents warned it could raise out-of-pocket costs, add mandated benefits, and shift costs to employees, while also arguing the bill had not been adequately studied. After extended debate, the House passed SB 2160 by a vote of 55-37. The chamber also concurred in Senate amendments to House Bill 1318, a pesticide labeling bill, and placed it on final passage, but the transcript ends before the final vote on that measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yep. discussion? All right. discussion? All right.
• Any discussion on the motion?
• Any discussion on the motion?
• Any discussion? Any discussion amended. Any discussion?
• Any discussion on the motion? And Okay. Any discussion on the motion?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up SB 297 and a new amendment, 2462, which combined the original Senate bill with the Carson amendment and added a proposed alternative regulatory system, RSA 420R. The chair and members discussed that the amendment was intended to give the Senate what it had asked for while also creating a dual system for public entity risk pools. Members asked whether the new structure would affect ownership or governance of health trusts, and the chair explained that 420R would be a separate regulatory statute while existing 420J-style arrangements could remain in place. The committee also noted that a paragraph had been accidentally deleted from the amendment and that another amendment would be prepared to correct it, with the subcommittee recessed while that was done. Public testimony focused on School Care, represented by Executive Director Lisa Ducette, who opposed the shift to Department of Insurance oversight under 420R. She argued that public entity risk pools are not insurance companies, that they are accountable to member entities and taxpayers, and that the proposed dual regulation would add unnecessary costs through examinations, higher reserves, and additional accounting requirements. She said the change could threaten tax-exempt status and create an uneven playing field, and she urged the committee to support SB 297 with the Carson amendment instead of moving to 420R. Committee members questioned whether the amendment would actually affect pools that stayed under the Secretary of State model, and one member cited support from the New Hampshire Municipal Association for the dual system. The discussion then shifted to amendment 245 on ambulance reimbursement and contracting timelines. Members reviewed a provision giving insurers 45 days and ambulance providers 60 days in the contracting process, and one member suggested making both periods 60 days. The chair and others said the current language was intentional and part of a broader compromise aimed at ending balance billing and forcing insurers to establish reimbursement rates. Members noted that the measure was unusual and that its effects would be reviewed over the next two years, with one member saying the bill would likely be difficult to roll back later. No final vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any further discussion? Representative Monks, I move to introduce RS-33-760.
• Committee, we have a motion before us and debate or discussion on that motion.
• Committee, we have a motion before us and debate or discussion on that motion. C-None.
• Okay, any further debate or discussion on the motion?
• Okay, any further debate or discussion on the motion?

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Other discussion on the motion? Not seeing any. Those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
• Discussion on that motion? I don't see any. Those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
• No discussion on the motion. Those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed?
• Any other questions or discussion? Any other questions or discussion for the chairman?
• Any discussion? Senate Bill 1364 to the floor with a do pass recommendation.

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion or debate? Seeing none, please open the queue.
• Any discussion or debate? Please don't... Any discussion or debate? Please open the queue.
• Any discussion or debate? Seeing none, please open the queue. Moore, aye.
• Was there any discussion for, like, 72 hours? I appreciate the question.
• Any discussion or debate? We have a due pass and a second. Any discussion or debate?

Bills: HB4409, HB4414, HB4484, HB4486, HB3057, HB2588, HB4434

Keywords: housing, legislative committee, affordable housing, Oklahoma Housing Finance Agency, policy improvement, HB4414, Oklahoma Homebuilder Program, OHFA, single-family housing, homebuilder loans, 0% interest loan, housing finance, workforce housing, Legislative Workforce Housing Committee, housing needs assessment, community housing assessment, disaster recovery housing, federally declared natural disaster, rural housing, urban housing

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any discussion? discussion? discussion?
• Um, any other member discussion?” discussion? discussion?
• </c> there any discussion to the A2? there any discussion to the A2?
• the discussion. Uh, have you thought of the discussion.
• </c> conversation, for discussion. conversation, for discussion.

Bills: HF3477, HF3480, HF3781, HF3357, HF3737, HF3664, HF3621

Keywords: civil rights, law enforcement, federal collaboration, accountability, state law, immigration enforcement, economic impact, Operation Metro Surge, study, appropriation, local government, Legislative Commission on Legislative Security, legislator security, elected official security, staff security, statehouse security, capitol security, legislative district safety, political violence prevention, threat assessment

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
• Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
• Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
• Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
• Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Summary: The committee met to review a large slate of fiscal year 2026 and 2027 appropriation, transfer, and continuation requests across multiple sections. Early items included temporary appropriations for agencies such as Health, DHS, Education, Public Safety, State Police, Emergency Management, Aeronautics, Military, Economic Development, and Game and Fish, covering items like maternal health outreach, energy assistance repayments, Wynne High School tornado rebuilding, senior food services, cybersecurity, crime victim reparations, aviation grants, conservation incentives, and emergency tower maintenance. Members asked questions on several items, including DHS aging carry-forward funds and Treasury custodial banking fees tied to COVID-era balances; the committee also approved a disclosure by the chair on the Game and Fish-related item before voting to approve the section. The committee then approved continuation requests, CARES Act and ARPA reallocations, and federal grant appropriations. Notable discussion included the Boonville developmental disability project, ALIGN program reallocations at several universities, a small business technical assistance grant at UA Little Rock, and a Department of Public Safety highway safety grant, for which members requested more detail on operating expenses and professional fees. Additional approvals covered a transfer to the Merit Teacher Incentive program, restricted reserve fund transfers for military medical command and university projects, and a state central services deduction held at 2%. The Department of Commerce also received approval for a reallocation of positions and spending authority tied to its organizational realignment. Later sections included shared technology and higher education transfers, cash fund appropriations for school Medicaid reimbursements, corrections, youth mental health, narcotics detection canines, bike safety equipment, a state motor pool pilot, and law enforcement safety costs. The committee also reviewed budget classification transfers, including a Governor’s Office legal fee transfer related to a California lawsuit, and heard explanations about E-Rate reimbursements affecting the Office of State Technology. Members asked about VOCA funding levels for crime victim services and about the National Security Grant Program for nonprofits and faith-based organizations; officials said federal funding had declined from prior highs but appeared to have stabilized, and that the nonprofit security grant is an annual federal program. The meeting concluded with review of pay plan requests, DHS overtime funding for child protection caseloads, and a year-end adjustment request allowing DFA to make up to $1 million in transfers to close the books, after which the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, Jennifer, what do you glean from this discussion?
• There was a second, and we were in discussion period. Is there any other discussion on this?
• Is there any other discussion? The Ignat... Is there any other discussion? Seeing none?
• Well, I think that’s part of our discussion.
• Any discussion? Seeing none, all. Second. Any discussion?

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing no further discussion. Okay, thank you.
• In discussion?
• Any further discussion?
• Any discussion? No, sir. Okay, members, any further discussion? Hearing none. No, sir.
• Okay, members, any further discussion?

Keywords: 1182, all