Transcript Highlights:

• I was with the party's agreement.
• First, it is a 10-year agreement.
• And um uh our uh this is an agreement we the mediated agreement is an agreement in principle with both
• c> mediated</c><00:26:51.279><c> agreement</c><00:26:51.600><c> is</c> agreement we the mediated agreement
• is agreement we the mediated agreement is an<00:26:51.919><c> agreement</c><00:26:52.240><c> in</c><

Committee: Senate Higher Education

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So you to the two years exist agreement<00:04:55.199><c> unfair</c><00:04:55.680><c> under</c> agreement
• with this agreement.
• </c> of these agreements. of these agreements.
• to the agreement is not performed within two years after the agreement.
• This agreement.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee took up HB 164, dealing with homeowners and certain service agreements tied to residential real estate. Much of the discussion focused on whether the bill should be framed as prohibiting “service agreements” or more specifically as banning “future right to listing” agreements, and whether the bill should mirror Maine’s newer law. Mike Padmore of AARP New Hampshire presented suggested edits, including clarifying that the agreements are unenforceable, striking a provision at Roman 6C, and adding language making clear that registry of deeds staff are not liable when they record documents they are statutorily required to file. Bob Quinn of the New Hampshire Association of Realtors said the bill and Maine’s law reach the same result, but he preferred simpler wording and argued the bill should not include a two-year time limit because legitimate listing agreements should not create liens at all. Members and witnesses debated whether the bill should simply make the practice illegal outright, whether the Consumer Protection Act is the right enforcement vehicle, and whether the lien-removal process should be modeled on the recent undischarged mortgage bill. A consumer protection official said the bureau supports the statute and explained that under RSA 358-A, consumers could seek damages and equitable relief to strike a lien, while also noting that the bureau often uses the Consumer Protection Act as an enforcement tool. The committee also discussed narrowing the bill to residential real estate, with the sponsor and witnesses saying the problem has been seen in residential transactions and that commercial property was not the focus. The testimony described the underlying problem as companies, often national rather than New Hampshire-based, using long-term or future listing agreements to impose liens or penalties on homeowners, sometimes in connection with estate transfers or home sales. Witnesses said legitimate real estate listings do not normally place liens on houses, but these arrangements can include hidden or unclear penalties, including a reported 3% charge on home value. No vote was taken in the excerpt, but the committee appeared to be working through possible amendments and whether to adopt Maine-style language or a simpler New Hampshire-specific approach.

Transcript Highlights:

• Folks, the Environmental Quality Council, pursuant to our statutes 35-112, may request the Office of
• The speaker explained that, with environmental quality issues, rulings, meetings, and everything else
• If that agreement, that promise that we make to our employees, does not involve a COLA adjustment, I
• If that agreement, that promise that we make to our employees, does not involve a COLA adjustment, I
• on it, then they come to an agreement on it, then they put<03:05:18.720><c> their</c><03:05:18.880><

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The full agreement will be posted soon, but in short, Democrats secured the power-sharing agreement we
• Ian, can you... agreement upholds the will of the voters agreement upholds the will of the voters as<
• </c><00:01:19.280><c> does</c> I'm pleased that this agreement does I'm pleased that this agreement does
• </c> the voter sent a tie this agreement the voter sent a tie this agreement honors<00:03:56.599><c>
• </c> to the oversight committee the agreement to the oversight committee the agreement protects<00:04

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• law enforcement officer and their employees, whether that's through a CBA, collective bargaining agreement
• , or whether that's bargaining agreement, or whether that's just<01:33:53.199><c> a,</c><01:33:53.520
• I am a prosecutor with the town of Campton, but hold intermunicipal prosecution agreements with Lincoln
• Um, Department of Environmental Services has rules and regulations that apply to getting rid of anything
• Um, Department of Environmental Services has rules and regulations that apply to getting rid of anything

Committee: House Criminal Justice and Public Safety

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . agreement. agreement.
• file that agreement.
• These two-year agreements are legitimate agreements that the real...
• </c> seen some of these agreements. seen some of these agreements.
• </c> agreements uninforceable. agreements uninforceable.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, which would allow state-chartered credit unions to compensate board members if the membership approves it. Prime sponsor Senator Dan Innis said the bill is enabling only, intended to help credit unions recruit and retain qualified directors and align New Hampshire with other states that already allow such compensation. Credit union representatives from the Cooperative Credit Union Association and St. Mary’s Bank supported the bill, saying board service has become more complex because of cybersecurity, asset-liability management, and other regulatory demands, and that compensation could be modest and take forms such as meeting fees or educational reimbursement. In response to committee questions, they said compensation would be set by the membership, disclosed in advance, and subject to bylaws and internal policies; they also noted that board members must be credit union members and that voting procedures vary by institution, with some using mailed ballots rather than proxy voting. Members raised questions about why credit union boards were historically excluded, what kinds of compensation were contemplated, whether there would be a cap, and how voting and confidentiality would work. Testimony explained that the historical rationale was the nonprofit, volunteer mission of credit unions, but witnesses argued that the modern environment and competition for talent justify a change. They also said the bill would not mandate compensation and would not create a salary structure comparable to banks, but would allow members to approve modest compensation or reimbursements. After no further testimony, the chair closed the public hearing on Senate Bill 25. The committee then opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 26, sponsored by Senator Howard Pearl, concerning the definition of deposits in land sales and escrowed accounts. Pearl said the bill would clarify that buyer funds for upgrades and luxury items in new-home construction are not treated as refundable deposits that must be held in escrow, arguing that the current Attorney General interpretation raises builder costs, increases home prices, and can limit buyer choices. He said the proposal would allow those upgrade funds to be paid directly to builders for construction, with signed disclosures making clear that the buyer requested the items and bears the risk if financing falls through. The hearing on Senate Bill 26 had just begun when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Leander could not come in because they don't have a previous interagency agreement with Travis County
• Those agreements in place really expedited that process to where we could get in contact. with those
• Having those agreements in place is a very crucial point. for the expedition of your recovery.
• with TxDOT to take over some of the maintenance agreements, so we appreciate TxDOT stepping in. there
• We have agreements with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, other state and local... as well as with

Committee: House Disaster Preparedness & Flooding, Select

Keywords: 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have seen agreements and circumstances. I told you we look at agreements. We do interviews.
• And obviously, the rules are asking for all of these different agreements and ownership agreements and
• operating agreement.
• The agreement that I did sign, we negated that agreement.
• After the fact, the agreement that I did sign, we negated that agreement to appease DCR. Okay.

Committee: House Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

Summary: The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules met to review Missouri marijuana microbusiness rule amendments, especially 19 CSR 100-1.060 and 19 CSR 100-1.190. The Department of Cannabis Regulation explained that the changes were intended to clarify what it means for a microbusiness to be “owned and operated” by eligible individuals, move compliance review earlier in the application process, and address repeated instances where licenses were later found to be controlled by ineligible or noncompliant parties. The department said it had used stakeholder outreach, town halls, listening sessions, and public comments in drafting the rules, and noted that 25 standalone comments were received during formal rulemaking. Committee members focused heavily on whether the rules were too broad, whether they effectively punished applicants for past agency revocations, and whether the department had clear authority to impose a lifetime ban on people denied or revoked under the ownership-and-operation provisions. Several members argued the language should be narrowed to intentional or egregious violations and better tied to specific conduct rather than prior agency action. Witnesses from the public, including applicants and attorneys, testified that the department’s guidance on “predatory practices” and acceptable ownership structures had been unclear, that some applicants relied on consultant arrangements later deemed problematic, and that similar agreements were treated inconsistently. Others supported stronger enforcement, saying the rules were needed to prevent manipulation of social equity applicants and preserve the constitutional requirements of the program. The committee also discussed training and technical assistance requirements, the five-day document deadline, and whether the department should provide more concrete guidance or model forms. Members raised concerns that the proposed definitions could burden small or first-time business owners and that some applicants might be unfairly penalized despite acting in good faith. No substantive vote on the rule package was taken; instead, the committee voted to adjourn and return on Thursday after working with the department on possible corrections, clarifications, or amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• I believe we do have a CD in circulation, and we are not in agreement on this one. No agreement.
• Um, an agreement on release on this one. Um, an agreement on the<00:16:54.639><c> CD1.
• Yeah, I do believe we have agreement on this. Uh, yes, we do have agreement on the CD.
• Do we have agreement from... Okay.
• </c> Uh yes, we do have agreement on the CD. Uh yes, we do have agreement on the CD.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The conference committees reconvened on April 25, 2025, and worked through a series of measures, mostly public employment cost items, appropriations, workers’ compensation, data sharing, and retirement-related bills. Several bills were briefly held for later action because Finance/FIN-WAM or related release had not yet been received, including SB 382, HB 423, HB 480, HB 214, HB 828, HB 717, HB 1065, and HB 1036, with some of those rolled over to a 2:30 p.m. meeting in Conference Room 16. HB 1424, relating to appropriations, was described as requiring the Director of Finance to report on transfers between position funding and operating expenses; the conferees agreed to a CD1 and voted to pass it. HB 430, relating to internships, was also agreed to in CD1 with technical amendments removing certain appropriation language and was passed after clarification that the funding covered both years and included the Helima program. The committees then moved through a block of public employment cost items. HB 1026, HB 1027, HB 1028, HB 1029, HB 1030, HB 1032, HB 1034, and HB 1035 were each reported as having CD1 agreement and Finance/WAM release, with appropriations tied to various bargaining units and governor’s messages; each was voted out. HB 1036 and HB 1037 were held over due to release issues, while HB 1038 was noted as having CD1 and Finance/WAM release and was passed for bargaining unit 13. HB 1039 was also rolled over for lack of release. Later, SB 336 on defense of state employees was agreed to with technical cleanup and passed as a CD, and SB 1491 on departmental data sharing was amended to add agencies to the state longitudinal data system and require aggregation/anonymization of certain data before being passed as a CD. Additional measures were also resolved. SB 935, relating to government, was amended to reduce the ERS multiplier for judges beginning in 2031, remove sheriff and deputy sheriff language, and require a DHR study on changing vesting from 10 to 5 years; it passed as a CD with no appropriation. SB 1567 required DERT to complete a comprehensive review of classification and compensation systems by October 31, 2026, allowed a third-party contractor, required legislative reports, and included $1.75 million in the budget; it passed as a CD. SB 855, relating to the Hawaii Retirement Savings Act, clarified covered employers, required automatic enrollment unless employees opt out, repealed a fee cap, and added funding for FY26 and FY27; it passed as a CD. SB 743 established a data sharing governance working group within the Office of Enterprise Technology Services and required a legislative report; after a brief recess it was passed as a CD. SB 717 and SB 1065 were both continued to the later 2:30 p.m. meeting because release was still pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• Department of Commerce to continue the tomato suspension agreement between the U.S. and Mexico.
• This agreement, in place since 1996, has helped ensure fair trade practices and price stability in the
• Department of Commerce to maintain the tomato suspension agreement.
• The agreement has an annual economic footprint of $4.6 billion. Just last month...
• Should the tomato suspension agreement be terminated by the U.S.

Bills: HCR108 , HCR127

Committee: House S/C on International Relations

Keywords: Tomato Suspension Agreement, trade, Mexico, Texas economy, agriculture, import tariffs, job preservation, Taiwan, U.S. relations, economic cooperation, sister-state, 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We did send that agreement to agreement.
• </c> cooperation agreement? cooperation agreement? The<00:07:54.200><c> draft?</c> The draft?
• </c><00:25:58.960><c> up</c> intent of of doing the agreement up intent of of doing the agreement up
• </c> conflict in that agreement. conflict in that agreement.
• </c> office as like a party to the agreement office as like a party to the agreement um,<00:26:31.520

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee received an update from the LBA on three audits related to education programs. Christine Young reported that the special education audit is in report-writing, with 44 of 81 observations completed, and that a draft is expected early in the third quarter with a final report later in the summer. She also said the doorway program audit has a draft report with 12 observations, auditee responses were received May 14, an exit conference was held May 18, and the report is now expected to be presented at the June fiscal committee meeting. The bulk of the discussion focused on the education freedom accounts audit and a proposed expansion of scope. Beulah Skids explained that the original audit, required by the 2022 law creating the EFA program, would be expanded to examine whether students were New Hampshire residents at enrollment and throughout participation, and whether records of educational attainment satisfied program requirements. She described the current work, the draft cooperation agreement being developed with the Department of Education and the Children’s Scholarship Fund, and the department’s concerns about the audit period and the term "educational progress," which the LBA said it would revise. The committee discussed that the expanded work would depend on a written agreement giving the LBA access to needed records, policies, and staff, with the Department of Education potentially serving as an intermediary for data access. Members raised concerns about the scope period and data access. Senator Lang asked that the residency review be limited to the 2024-25 and 2025-26 school years, rather than the broader 2022-25 period, because those years captured the major program expansions; the committee appeared to agree, with clarification that the reference was to school years, not fiscal years. Members also discussed reconciliation of EFA funds, noting that the department has agreed to reopen rulemaking to make reconciliation more frequent so unused funds can be returned to the state sooner. Several members expressed frustration that access to data had been delayed, while LBA staff said the cooperation agreement is intended to prevent further roadblocks and that the AG’s office could review it if needed.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have seen agreements and circumstances. I told you we look at agreements. We do interviews.
• agreements and operating agreement.
• There should be an operating agreement.
• I supplied DCR with the agreements when requested.
• The agreement that I did sign, we negated that agreement to appease DCR. Okay.

Committee: House Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . agreement. agreement.
• </c> such agreements would be uninforcable. such agreements would be uninforcable.
• These, those two-year agreements are legitimate agreements that the real...
• </c> seen some of these agreements. seen some of these agreements.
• </c> them being able to refuse agreements. them being able to refuse agreements.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, which would allow New Hampshire state-chartered credit unions to choose, by member vote, to compensate their board members. Prime sponsor Senator Dan Innis said the bill is enabling only, does not require compensation, and is intended to align New Hampshire with other states that already permit this. He argued that credit union board service now requires more time and expertise, and that compensation could help attract stronger candidates and improve governance. Representatives from the Cooperative Credit Union Association and St. Mary’s Bank testified in support. They said the change would not create salaries, but could cover modest compensation or reimbursements such as daycare, education, cybersecurity, or accounting training. They emphasized that credit unions remain nonprofit and member-driven, that board members must be credit union members and elected by members, and that any compensation decision would be made by the membership at an annual meeting or through the credit union’s voting process. Witnesses also said the bill would help with recruitment and retention, especially as credit union operations have become more complex and digital, and noted that similar authority exists in 16 other states, including Rhode Island. Committee members asked about the historical reason credit unions were excluded, the amount and structure of compensation, whether there would be a cap, and how voting would work. Witnesses said the bill does not set a statutory maximum, but in practice the amount would be disclosed to members and set through the vote; they also described St. Mary’s Bank’s ballot process and said proxy or ballot procedures depend on each credit union’s bylaws. One witness noted that federally chartered credit unions are subject to different limits. After testimony and questions, the chair closed the public hearing on Senate Bill 25 and then moved on to Senate Bill 26.

Transcript Highlights:

• , but also covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
• We also bargain two health care agreements: the state employee health care agreement, PEBB, and the K
• We also bargain two health care agreements: the state employee health care agreement, PEBB, and the K
• These numbers are inclusive of the PEB health care agreement only.
• The arbitrator reviews the evidence and determines an agreement.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Employment Relations

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• committee substitute HCR 108 urges the US Department of Commerce to continue the tomato suspension agreement
• This agreement, in place since 1996, has helped ensure fair trade practices and price stability in the
• If the agreement were to be terminated, a 17.09% tariff would be reinstated, which could cost the Texas
• Studies predict that without the agreement, tomato prices could surge by up to 50%, placing an undue
• The agreement has an annual economic footprint of $4.6 billion.

Committee: House S/C on International Relations

Transcript Highlights:

• There is widespread agreement among physicians and medical professionals that prior authorizations can
• plans just choose not to enter into contracts because they prefer to use what they call letters of agreement
• The motion is due pass to the Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials. Bonta, aye.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee met on April 22 and took up a special order of bills focused largely on prior authorization and utilization management in health care. The chair framed the discussion as part of a broader legislative effort to reduce delays and barriers to care, especially in behavioral health, chronic disease management, cancer treatment, and rehabilitation services. AB 384 by Assembly Member Connolly would prohibit prior authorization for inpatient mental health or substance use emergency admissions and related physician care; supporters said it would prevent dangerous delays in crisis care, while insurers and health plans warned about fraud, abuse, and ambiguity around residential treatment facilities. The bill was moved on a due pass as amended motion and passed the committee on a party-line style vote, with Republicans largely absent or not voting. The committee then heard AB 510 by Assembly Member Addis, which would require health plans, upon request, to provide a peer reviewer of the same or similar specialty when a treating provider appeals a prior authorization denial or modification. Supporters argued that specialty-matched review would make appeals fairer and more clinically informed; opponents said the requirement was too rigid and that timelines and electronic submission rules needed changes. After discussion about the need for timely, specialty-specific review, the bill was approved on a due pass as amended motion and placed on call. AB 539 by Assembly Member Schiavo would extend prior authorization approvals to one year or the duration of the physician’s prescribed treatment for chronic conditions; supporters cited repeated denials and treatment interruptions, while opponents raised concerns about overbreadth, fraud, and the need for shorter validity periods. The bill was also passed as amended and placed on call. The committee next considered AB 669 by Assembly Member Haney, which would bar concurrent and retrospective review for the first 28 days of medically necessary substance use disorder treatment and limit prior authorization for related outpatient medications. The bill was presented with a powerful personal story from Ryan Matlock’s mother about her son’s death after an insurer cut off treatment early; supporters said the measure would keep patients in care long enough to stabilize, while opponents argued it would reduce oversight and could allow lower-quality or non-evidence-based care. The bill was moved on a due pass as amended motion and placed on call. Finally, AB 512 by Assembly Member Harabedian would shorten prior authorization response times to 24 hours for urgent requests and 48 hours for non-urgent requests; supporters said delays can worsen outcomes, while opponents warned the timelines were unrealistic and could increase administrative burdens and safety issues. The bill was approved as amended and placed on call. AB 574 by Assembly Member Mark Gonzalez was then heard; it would allow up to 12 medically necessary physical therapy sessions for a new episode of care without prior authorization, with supporters emphasizing stroke and neurological recovery and opponents warning of reduced oversight and unnecessary care. The transcript ends during testimony on AB 574, before final action is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• , but also covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
• We also bargain two health care agreements: the state employee health care agreement, PEBB, and the K
• -12 employee health care coalition agreement, which is called SEB.
• Denying funding of the tentative agreements.
• The arbitrator reviews the evidence and determines an agreement.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Employment Relations

Summary: The Joint Committee on Employment Relations met on May 8, 2026, to review goals and objectives for the 2027–2029 master collective bargaining cycle and to hear updates on higher education and Washington Management Service bargaining. OFM’s Jenny Sheehan outlined the state workforce, noting that most employees are represented, the workforce remains heavily governed by civil service rules and CBAs, and the state is entering bargaining under a constrained hiring and budget environment. She described the bargaining timeline, the role of the June revenue forecasts in determining whether targeted compensation increases can be funded, and the state’s goals of affordability, maintaining labor relations, supporting equity, and addressing non-economic issues such as AI use, leave, immigration-related workplace concerns, and union access in a hybrid work environment. Sheehan also reviewed the 2025–2027 bargaining cycle, including the prior WPEA ratification issue and the requirement that tentative agreements be submitted by October 1 for financial feasibility review and possible legislative funding. She said the 2025–27 agreements cost about $1.2 billion in general funds and $1.7 billion total, excluding the later-funded WPEA agreements. In response to a question, she explained that paid family and medical leave is not bargained over directly because it is governed by statute and ESD rules. She then presented on Washington Management Service bargaining, explaining that only certain WMS employees are eligible to bargain, that representation remains small, and that current WMS contracts are handled through addenda to existing agreements. She also described interest arbitration for certain groups, including ferries and public safety-related employees, and said arbitration awards still must be financially feasible and submitted by October 1. The committee also heard from Western Washington University and the University of Washington on higher education bargaining. Western described its locally bargained contracts, the importance of local bargaining for workload, tenure, grievance, and safety issues, and the impact of the state fund split on budget planning. Western said it has no state funding for student compensation and has requested inclusion of student employees in the wage base. UW outlined its large workforce and the different bargaining frameworks under RCW 41.56 and 41.80, emphasizing that state funding and tuition make up only a portion of its budget and that the fund split and health care cost increases significantly affect compensation planning. UW also highlighted its request for state funding for academic student employee compensation, saying rising costs are reducing the number of positions and affecting class sizes and the academic pipeline. No votes were taken, and the meeting adjourned after members discussed the upcoming bargaining and arbitration timelines.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, an agreement would or Friday?
• </c> Johnson in the special session agreement Johnson in the special session agreement or<00:03:38.000
• If portions of their their agreement.
• </c><00:04:33.199><c> on</c> they if they can't get agreements on they if they can't get agreements on
• How's the power-sharing agreement going? It's an interesting power-sharing agreement. Yes.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• How soon after that can we expect this agreement to end?
• of that agreement and see how you can build upon it.
• </c> this agreement to end well the agreement this agreement to end well the agreement will<00:02:42.280
• It's historic for us to be in this power-sharing agreement moment.
• It's historic for us to be in this power-sharing agreement moment.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• What is the agreement on paid family leave? What is the agreement?
• What is the agreement on paid family leave? What is the agreement?
• What is the agreement on paid family leave? What is the agreement?
• What is the agreement on paid family leave? What is the agreement?
• What is the agreement on paid family leave? What is the agreement?

Keywords: 1183, house