Transcript Highlights:

• referred to the committee on natural resources HB 158 by Raymond relating to the study of the use of surplus
• By Isaac relating to the allocation and deposit of certain surplus state revenue to the property tax
• HB 228 by Bell of Montgomery Ruling. to the allocation and disposition of certain surplus state revenue
• subcommittee on transportation funding SB 264 by Bell of Kaufman related to the dedication of certain surplus
• reducing school district maintenance and operations of ad valorem taxes through the use of certain surplus

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you go to page one, it is a surplus statement summary of the general education trust fund, of what
• One reason for that, I'll get to in the surplus statement, is because of the lapse estimate.
• This is called Schedule Two of the surplus statement.
• We turn to page 10, the fishing game comparative statement of undesignated surplus.
• Uh again uh most of the changes surplus.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Summary: The Legislative Budget Assistant staff presented an overview of the Senate changes to the House-passed budget, focusing on revenue estimates, appropriations, and ending balances across the general fund and education trust fund. The presentation emphasized that the Senate’s budget reflected higher revenue assumptions than the House, driven in part by updated April revenue figures, changes to business, tobacco, and real estate transfer tax splits, and different assumptions about video lottery terminal revenue. The Senate also adjusted lapse estimates upward, especially for HHS, after receiving updated information that lapses could be much larger than originally assumed. The presenter walked through the major differences in the surplus statements for fiscal years 2025 through 2027. Compared with the House, the Senate budget generally showed higher revenues, lower or different appropriations in some areas, and larger balances carried forward, including a larger education trust fund balance and a different rainy day fund transfer. The Senate’s approach also changed several policy assumptions, such as maintaining liquor revenue dedication, removing the House’s meals-and-rooms distribution cap, changing the treatment of unique revenue, and altering the process for meeting a targeted revenue amount by giving the governor more flexibility. On the appropriations side, the Senate removed or modified several House reductions and added funding or adjustments in areas including the judicial branch, corrections, HHS, the Human Rights Commission, and certain settlement costs. The presenter also highlighted Senate changes in House Bill 2 and related budget provisions, including a new arts tax credit, a nursing home bed fee, changes to Medicaid premium assumptions, and differences in how motor vehicle inspection repeal and BLT-related revenue are handled. No votes were taken in the portion shown; the discussion was informational and comparative, aimed at explaining the Senate budget changes before conference committee negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• We even have, one of the few industrial countries, we have a trade surplus with Australia.
• How, with a trade surplus.
• We have a trade surplus. So getting the least bad, why did they get whacked in the first place?
• We have a trade surplus. We have a free trade agreement.
• But with your Greek letter formula, the fact that we have a trade surplus.

Keywords: tariffs, Trump administration, economy, public testimony, trade policy, market access, export controls

Summary: The meeting focused on various significant topics concerning the recent tariff policies and their wide-ranging implications on the American economy. Members expressed their concerns regarding the negative impact of increased tariffs as proposed by the Trump administration, with specific emphasis on how families might suffer from higher costs and market access issues. The discussion was lively, with members questioning the clarity of the tariff plan and raising concerns about its potential effects on small businesses and American exports.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh so to answer your surplus or not.
• ,<05:24:15.920> distribute then if you have a surplus, distribute then if you have a surplus
• <05:37:34.320> for other respondents, and using surplus for other respondents, and using surplus
• the surplus to member municipalities. the surplus to member municipalities.
• <05:38:09.760> funds, improperly using surplus funds, improperly using surplus funds, improperly

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So those reserve levels went up into the surplus range.
• So those reserve levels went up into the surplus range.
• I mean, they were holding huge amounts of money that were surplus.
• amounts of money that were surplus. amounts of money that were surplus.
• The issue has always been surplus. Yeah.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up several insurance-related bills. Senate Bill 47, concerning health insurance policies related to the birth of the mother, was moved ought to pass with no amendments and was approved on a 6-0 vote. Senate Bill 121, dealing with Medicare Advantage plan notice requirements, was amended to reduce the required notice from 120 days to 90 days and to remove a federal citation; the department said the change was to avoid conflict with federal notice rules. After discussion about the stress caused when carriers leave the Medicare Advantage market, the committee voted ought to pass as amended, 7-0. The committee then heard a detailed explanation of the continuing care retirement communities bill, described by the Insurance Department as a rewrite of a 1989 law to modernize oversight, require quarterly financial reporting as an early warning system, create a bill of rights for residents, and clarify issues such as entrance fees and removal of dangerous residents. A member recalled the bill’s original purpose as protecting solvency because residents pay substantial upfront fees. The bill was moved ought to pass and approved unanimously, 7-0. The final major discussion concerned a pooled risk organizations bill. Members debated whether oversight should remain with the Secretary of State or be moved to the Insurance Department. Supporters of moving it argued the issue is solvency, citing concerns about reserve levels, prior insolvencies, and the Insurance Department’s expertise. Opponents said the Secretary of State’s office had historically overseen the entities and that the bill would fundamentally change how they operate. A straw vote favored an amendment, but the committee ultimately voted to retain the bill for further work, with plans to revisit it later in the session.

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, so when we had a surplus—even we don't have a surplus now—but now we're worried about how we're
• You know, so when we had a surplus—even we don't have a surplus now—but now we're worried about how we're
• We spent the entire surplus.
• We didn't have an auto inflator to spend the surplus; we decided as legislators how to spend that surplus
• You know, we had an $8.5 billion surplus.

Bills: HF5

Keywords: tax modification, transportation funding, electric vehicle tax, Social Security subtraction, retail delivery fee, motor vehicle registration, state budget, transportation policy, 1183, house

Summary: The Transportation Committee resumed consideration of House File 5, which would reduce transportation-related revenues while also providing tax relief, including a subtraction for Social Security income, elimination of the delivery fee, and a cap on automatic gas tax indexing. The committee adopted the A1 author’s amendment, which added the phrase “using existing resources,” and then proceeded to public testimony. Representative Joy described the bill as making Minnesota more affordable, while several members and testifiers raised concerns about the impact on transportation funding and road maintenance. MnDOT Commissioner Nancy Doppenberg testified that reductions in planned transportation investments would worsen pavement, bridge, and roadway conditions, reduce construction projects and jobs, and add to an already large funding gap. Committee discussion focused on the estimated revenue losses from the bill, including about $45 million in fiscal year 2026 and $55 million annually from repealing the delivery fee, plus additional losses from capping gas tax indexing, for a combined transportation revenue reduction of about $131 million in the 2026-27 biennium. Members also asked about bridge aesthetics, paint, transit impacts, and whether other mandates and cost increases should be considered alongside revenue reductions. Supporters of the delivery fee repeal, including the Minnesota Grocers Association and Minnesota Retailers Association, argued the fee is costly to administer, confusing to consumers, and disproportionately burdens small businesses and lower-income or disabled consumers who rely on delivery. The Minnesota Association of Townships and the Minnesota Transportation Alliance emphasized that rural and local governments face major road and bridge funding needs and warned that reducing revenue would shift costs to property taxpayers or leave projects unfunded. No final vote on the bill was taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the committee continued with testimony and member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• THE REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE WE ACT LIKE THIS IS SURPLUS MONEY.
• BY DEFINITION, A SURPLUS IS WHAT REMAINS WHEN YOUR NEEDS AND OBLIGATIONS HAVE BEEN MET.
• SO THEN WE TURN AROUND AND SAY TO THEM I'M SORRY, WE HAVE ALL THE SURPLUS MONEY BUT WE WILL NOT HELP
• I THINK USING THE WORD OF SURPLUS BY DOCTOR TEMPLIN IS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I just, I understand it, but I also know that the reason we have a surplus this session of, you know,
• But like I said, we're in the financial position we are in today with all this surplus in large part
• I'm trying to make sure of is that the Railroad Commission does not view this new revenue. ...as a surplus
• And if so, again, what I'm trying to make sure of is that the base fee doesn't become surplus to the

Bills: SB2122, SB2050, HB16

Keywords: oil and gas waste, application fees, permit amendments, environmental regulation, Texas natural resources, battery recycling, battery disposal, consumer batteries, energy storage modules, electrochemical devices, lithium-ion battery, household hazardous waste, solid waste, municipal recycling, waste management, battery stewardship, producer responsibility, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, recycling program

Transcript Highlights:

• We actually had the department run a surplus, and you can see there we ran a $26 million surplus on six
• We actually had the department run a surplus, and you can see there we ran a $26 million surplus on six
• you cap it off with 385 projects, $1.73 billion, which is a combination of priority program, LTIF, surplus
• on what else is available, what the legislature gives you in addition to a priority program, what surplus
• Unless you take more money out of revenue stabilization or get some other surplus cash somewhere, this

Summary: The committee met for an information-only hearing with no votes or other action items. DOTD Secretary Glenn LaD and Deputy Secretary Beau Black gave an update on the department’s transformation efforts, focusing on faster project delivery, improved construction administration, and new technology. They said monthly contractor payment approvals have been reduced from roughly 35 days to 15 days or less, change orders from about 40-45 days to around five days, and that DOTD delivered 86% of its advertised projects in the last fiscal year. They also described new tools such as Headlight for field inspections, Smart PM for schedule tracking, Hall Hub for e-ticketing and work-zone mapping, and a pilot using advanced sensors on district vehicles to identify potholes, guardrail damage, and other asset issues. The department also outlined a district reorganization that replaces the area engineer model with dedicated district points of contact for construction, maintenance, and operations, with no increase in total staff. Members raised concerns about local maintenance issues, especially mowing, drainage, culverts, potholes, and communication with district offices. Several members asked for clearer coordination on jurisdictional questions, more frequent meetings with district administrators, and better public updates on long-running projects. LaD said DOTD would schedule follow-up meetings, use the coming customer service portal to track complaints, and improve public communication through project information officers, social media, and other outreach. Questions also covered contractor accountability, utility relocations, road transfer maps on the DOTD website, and whether maintenance work adjacent to capital projects should be handled by district crews or through new IDIQ contracts. The secretary also reviewed the Highway Priority Program process, saying DOTD will work between June and September to review projects not included in the prior program, explain why, and refine a five-year fiscally constrained plan before the fall road show. He said the department is using IDIQ authority to award bridge maintenance and other task-order work, and that this should help address a two-year bridge repair backlog. Members discussed whether current funding levels are enough to reduce the statewide backlog, and DOTD said the current program likely maintains rather than eliminates it absent new revenue. The hearing ended with a project-specific update that a barge struck the Black Bayou Pontoon Bridge that morning, causing significant damage; DOTD said divers and staff would inspect it and determine emergency repairs. After DOTD’s presentation, Archie Chesson of the Office of Louisiana Highway Construction gave a brief update on that office’s first year, describing its use of consultant pools, master service agreements, a public GIS map, and a data tool to prioritize rural road and bridge projects, with several early projects already completed or under construction.

Transcript Highlights:

• We actually have more than we have a surplus in Bernalillo County in, in, in, in Santa Fe County, a,
• However, if you look at the third bar from the left, we're going to have a surplus projected of nurse
• And again, you can see that we're probably gonna have a surplus of nurse practitioners. 19, slide 19.
• The only area of healthcare where there's a projected surplus is for nurse practitioners and physician
• I have a hard time understanding how we can have a huge, huge surplus of PAs when we see in the data

Transcript Highlights:

• > statement<01:31:57.920> will And maybe this surplus statement will And maybe this surplus
• :32:04.159> you<01:32:04.400> were surplus statement that uh you were surplus statement
• committee members get the surplus committee members get the surplus statement<02:19:35.359> rather
• > are us because the surplus statements are us because the surplus statements are not<02:20:13.520
• Is sort of updated surplus statement.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on SB 60, which would expressly authorize advanced deposit wagering for horse racing in New Hampshire and set the online tax rate at 1.25%, matching the existing rate for in-person horse betting at Seabrook and Belmont. Senator Tim Lang said the bill is intended to clarify that online horse betting is permitted, regulate the activity, and create a revenue stream while keeping the tax rate consistent with brick-and-mortar wagering. Members asked about the rate compared with other states, whether the bill was really about casino front money, and whether geofencing would apply; Lang and later witnesses said the bill is narrowly limited to parimutuel horse racing and would use geofencing to keep wagering within New Hampshire. Peter Bragdon, speaking for Churchill Downs, supported the bill and described advanced deposit wagering as remote betting on horse races under the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978. He said Churchill Downs and other operators have long been active in New Hampshire, but the state’s lack of a specific statute has created a gray area. Bragdon said Churchill Downs stopped its own New Hampshire online operations in 2022 after discussions with the Lottery Commission and attorney general, while competitors continued operating, and he framed the bill as a fairness and consumer-protection measure that would clarify the law going forward. He also said the bill would not affect historic horse racing machines and would not create cannibalization of charitable gaming. Lottery Director Charlie McIntyre said the Lottery Commission and attorney general had identified the issue as similar to the earlier fantasy sports situation, where legislation was used to regulate an activity rather than pursue enforcement. He said the commission requested the bill, would serve as the regulator, and would address violations through rulemaking and penalties. McIntyre said operators would maintain customer and transaction records, with the commission reviewing them as needed, and he noted that three operators are currently active in the state and not paying the proposed 1.25% rate. No vote was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• on the surplus statement."
• on the surplus statement."
• on the surplus statement."
• on the surplus statement."
• on the surplus statement."

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee received a Department of Revenue Administration update from Commissioner Lindsay Stepp focused on revenue estimates for fiscal years 2025, 2026, and 2027. She explained the department’s forecasting method, which uses five scenarios based on the first seven months of actual collections and different assumptions for the remaining months, then selects a reasonable high and low range for FY 25 and applies projected growth rates for FY 26 and FY 27. Members asked several clarifying questions about how the scenarios are chosen and how the estimates relate to economic growth and taxpayer behavior. For business taxes, Stepp reported FY 25 year-to-date collections of $110.3 million, 18.2% below plan and 17.2% below prior year. She said the shortfall reflects both economic conditions and a resetting of estimated payments after unusually strong pandemic-era profits, and noted that the department cannot fully separate changes in taxpayer liability from changes in estimated payment behavior. She said approximately just under $72 million was refunded in FY 24 due to the CCO cap, and that FY 25 year-to-date refunds are at 41.7%. For business taxes, the department’s FY 25 range was based on either continued underperformance versus plan or a return to prior-year levels, with FY 26 and FY 27 growth projected at 3% to 8%. The committee also reviewed meals and rooms tax, tobacco tax, and related trends. Meals and rooms revenue was $6.9 million, or 3.3%, ahead of plan and prior year; the FY 25 gross estimate was $475.894 million, with a net range of about $331.82 million to $335.259 million after municipal transfers and school building aid. Stepp said recent monthly results suggest some fluctuation tied to disposable income, weather, and travel patterns, but no clear sustained decline. Tobacco tax was $18.1 million, 14% below plan and 4.8% below prior year; she said cigarette stamp sales are declining while e-cigarettes and other tobacco products are growing, with FY 25 tobacco revenue projected at $182.5 million to $185.3 million and FY 26-FY 27 growth ranging from -5% to flat. No votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh there's a 3.7 billion dollar surplus to the end of this biennium and then the next biennium after
• , which might not be a surplus after the federal government withholds the money that they are going to
• Uh there's a 3.7 billion<00:41:28.480> dollar<00:41:28.880> surplus<00:41:30.000> uh
• , which might not be a of our surplus, which might not be a surplus<00:42:53.359> after<00:42:
• government surplus after the federal government withholds<00:42:55.680> the<00:42:55.920>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If they need to spend more than that, they would have to draw from surplus, from their undesignated surplus
• If they need to spend more than that, they would have to draw from surplus, from their undesignated surplus
• Thank you. the fishing no from fishing game Surplus the fishing no from fishing game Surplus to<03:18
• If they need to spend more than that, they would have to draw from surplus, from their undesignated surplus
• <04:36:33.160> in actually have a significant Surplus in actually have a significant Surplus

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from the University System of New Hampshire chancellor on the system’s budget, enrollment, finances, workforce role, and response to federal policy changes. The chancellor said the governor’s recommended budget would reduce university system funding by about $16.5 million over the biennium, or roughly 8.3%, and asked that state funding be held at the governor’s level. She described planned cost reductions already underway, including lower headcount, reduced benefits and retirement contributions, property sales, and lease reductions, and said the system expects to remove about $20 million from its cost structure in fiscal year 2026. A large portion of the discussion focused on enrollment and finances. The chancellor said fall 2024 enrollment was about 23,000, with New Hampshire enrollment increasing for the first time since 2013, and noted that the system remains a major workforce pipeline, with about 3,000 graduates entering the state workforce each year. She explained that net tuition has fallen over time because of declining enrollment and increased financial aid, while research grants and contracts have grown significantly. She also walked through endowment funding, explaining that payouts are based on a 12-quarter rolling average and are intentionally smoothed to reduce volatility; members asked for follow-up information on payout comparisons, administrative salaries, headcounts, and compensation per student. Members questioned the university about the relationship between state support, tuition, endowments, and research spending. The chancellor said the system has used state capital support to leverage major investments, including the UNH Life Sciences building, Plymouth’s Hyde Hall, and the Olson Advanced Manufacturing Center, and described partnerships with businesses such as Lonza and regional manufacturers. She also explained a long-running New Hampshire 529-related revenue stream that has built endowment support for scholarships, and said the system’s endowment now totals about $988 million. In response to questions about possible cuts, she said the system is considering academic program sharing, consolidation of specialties, online delivery, AI-assisted administrative efficiencies, and footprint reductions, but declined to name specific programs. The committee also discussed DEI-related issues and federal grants. The chancellor said the system is reviewing executive orders and a U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague letter, and that general counsel is working through websites, programs, and more than 1,200 federal grants to ensure compliance. She said the system spends about $3 million on what it calls DEI-related offices and services, but emphasized that these services include disability support, veteran support, Title IX, ADA, and employment-law compliance, and that the system does not have race-based programs, separate housing, or separate graduation ceremonies. She reported that the system had received stop-work orders on four federal grants totaling about $700,000 and warned that reductions in federal direct or indirect costs could affect research, jobs, and innovation.

Transcript Highlights:

• After that was finished, the real work began as campaign workers went to surplus voters.
• delegate, you could get an extra delegate, making the case for their candidate and watching those surplus
• afternoon, Chair Hahn and honorable members. finished, the real work began as campaign voters went to surplus
• candidate, you could get an extra delegate, making the case for their candidate and watching those surplus

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Election Laws held a hearing on ranked choice voting, focusing primarily on Boston’s home rule petition (H. 4262) and Bedford’s petition (H. 4916). Committee chairs Dan Hunt and Senator Keenan opened the hearing, explained the three-minute testimony limit, and noted that written testimony would also be accepted. The hearing featured testimony from a wide range of supporters, including advocacy organizations, community leaders, Boston City Council members, and Bedford residents. Witnesses generally argued that ranked choice voting would produce majority-supported winners, reduce vote-splitting and negative campaigning, encourage coalition-building, and give voters more freedom to rank candidates without fear of wasting their vote. Several speakers emphasized local control and said Boston and Bedford should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to adopt the system. Others highlighted potential benefits for women, historically marginalized communities, and voter participation more broadly. Boston councilors and supporters also described the city’s local approval process and said the proposal would still require voter ratification if enacted by the legislature. No opposition testimony was presented in the excerpt. The committee took no substantive vote on the bills during the hearing; after testimony concluded, the chairs thanked participants and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The next issue that the board has brought up is a donation from Tara Simmons' surplus account to hire
• Representative Simmons is allowed to donate her excess cash, her campaign surplus.
• That doesn't mean she's not allowed to donate from her surplus account to help the charity be able to
• First, through the donation of campaign surplus funds to AEJG in order to secure a job for someone with

Summary: The Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings held oral argument before the Legislative Ethics Board in the matter of Representative Tara Simmons, docketed as Legislative Ethics Board case 2025-5. The hearing concerned Simmons’ motion for summary judgment in an ethics complaint alleging violations of RCW 42.52.020 (conflicts of interest) and RCW 42.52.070 (special privileges), based on her work involving an EEC proviso, her employment relationship with EEC, a campaign surplus donation connected to AEJG and Jerry Stone, her involvement in an AEJG-EEC subcontract dispute, and related text messages with Anthony Powers. No evidence was taken; the session focused on legal argument over whether the alleged facts, if accepted as true, were sufficient to establish violations as a matter of law. Simmons’ counsel argued the complaint was legally insufficient because the alleged actions benefited her employer or others, not Simmons herself, and that existing board opinions allow legislators to support employers absent a direct personal benefit. He also argued the board was effectively trying to adopt a new bright-line rule prohibiting legislators from funding employers, which he said would be an improper retroactive change. Board staff, through Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisentrout, opposed summary judgment and argued the facts were enough to show Simmons had an indirect financial or other interest in EEC’s funding, that her job duties and legislative actions created conflicts, and that her actions around the donation, subcontract dispute, and text messages could be viewed as using her position to secure special privileges. A board member asked whether the allegations themselves were sufficient and whether the standard required assuming the facts as alleged; staff responded that the motion failed because the record contained sufficient facts to proceed, and that any factual disputes should be resolved at hearing. After rebuttal, the ALJ closed the oral argument and turned the matter over to the Legislative Ethics Board for deliberation. No ruling was issued during the hearing, and the board was to decide whether to grant the summary judgment motion or set the case for an evidentiary hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We had an $18 billion surplus.
• two years ago uh we had an<00:02:47.879> $18<00:02:48.400> billion<00:02:49.000> Surplus
• c><00:02:49.440> we've<00:02:49.599> heard<00:02:49.840> many an $18 billion Surplus
• we've heard many an $18 billion Surplus we've heard many times<00:02:50.599> on<00:02:50.840>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• make sure that all the items in the education trust fund are taken care of and not maintain a large surplus
• I directed the LBA to, when working on this, to keep a balance between 25 and $30 million of surplus
• > a<00:14:14.399> s<00:14:14.880> a<00:14:15.120> large<00:14:15.440> surplus
• of and not maintain a s a large surplus of and not maintain a s a large surplus balance<00:14:16.880
• in the education trust fund of surplus in the education trust fund and<00:15:09.760> these<00

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• > I think what you're seeing right now is Democrats' frustration after 2 years and $18 billion of surplus
• billion dollar of surplus being spent. billion dollar of surplus being spent.
• We saw $18 billion of surplus being spent that year.
• We saw $18 billion<00:41:07.280> of<00:41:07.440> surplus<00:41:07.920> being<00
• uh that billion of surplus being spent uh that year.<00:41:09.680> And<00:41:09.839> then<

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so campaign surplus funds are definitely not something that is legislative related because people
• ..out of my campaign surplus to my friend to help his organization and help another friend.
• Actually, let me go back and just ask you one brief question about the surplus funds donations.
• I don't, I've never given surplus funds to EEC. I'm sorry, to AEJG. Thank you.
• I don't, I've never given surplus funds to EEC. I'm sorry, to AEJG. Specifically to AEJG, no.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The hearing resumed on day two of the Legislative Ethics Board fact-finding matter involving Representative Tara Simmons. After opening remarks and confirmation that board members had not engaged in outside research or ex parte communications, Simmons’s counsel moved to dismiss two allegations at the close of the board staff’s case: that Simmons pressured the Administrative Office of the Courts to alter a contract in favor of her employer, and that she improperly combined a legislative proviso for AEJG with a personal donation to the organization. Board staff opposed the motion, arguing the evidence showed Simmons’s legislative and private conduct were intertwined and that the board had enough evidence to require a defense. After deliberation, the board denied the motion to dismiss and proceeded to hear defense testimony. The first defense witness, Sharon Navas, testified that she met Simmons through advocacy work, later hired her at the Equity and Education Coalition (EEC), and maintained written employment policies intended to separate Simmons’s legislative role from her work for EEC. Navas said Simmons was never compensated for lobbying or legislative acts, that EEC paid her from unrestricted funds, and that Simmons did not work on the AEJG dashboard project or participate in the contract dispute with Anthony Powers and Chris Stanley. Navas described the proviso request and later contract issues as separate from Simmons’s legislative duties, and said she continued to pay invoices while the project was being completed. Simmons then testified about her background, legislative career, disability accommodations, and extensive efforts to seek ethics advice before taking outside employment or pursuing provisos. She said she repeatedly consulted House ethics counsel and reviewed prior board decisions to ensure her outside work and legislative actions were separated. Simmons described her relationship with Anthony Powers, the dashboard project, the proviso process, and her understanding that the work was distinct from her legislative role. The hearing paused for lunch after part of Simmons’s direct examination, with testimony set to continue after the break.