Transcript Highlights:

• Institutions, and that also again starts in the 27-28 academic year.
• institutions.
• institutions.
• And that is, it's not just students who attend public institutions.
• Like when you are, you know, you're a higher education institution.

Bills: SB5826 , SB5828 , SB5909 , SB5954

Committee: Senate Higher Education & Workforce Development

Keywords: medication abortion, public education, access, healthcare rights, postsecondary institutions, college grant, scholarships, higher education, private institutions, Washington State, undergraduate programs, enrollment, program review, public institutions, veterans, tuition waiver, education, survivors, eligibility

Transcript Highlights:

• happen at any of our institutions?
• happen at any of our institutions?
• And we are not just at the women's institution, but all of our institutions, we have an aggressive push
• You know, when things arise at the institutions, it gets to my level, I'm out there at those institutions
• Facility-wise, again, we do keep those. institutional institutions, but operationally it does not make

Committee: Senate Rules

Transcript Highlights:

• We are a public institution, obviously.
• We are a public institution, obviously.
• institutions versus an R2 institution.
• That's a function of the size of our institution.
• At least in our institution, I actually serve as treasurer for that institution or for that foundation

Summary: The Higher Education Budget Subcommittee met to hear an overview of State University System finances from the Board of Governors and detailed budget presentations from Florida State University, the University of Central Florida, and the University of North Florida. The witnesses explained how university budgets are organized into fund categories such as education and general, contracts and grants, auxiliaries, local/designated funds, capital projects, and component units such as direct support organizations. They also described carry forward funds, the statutory reserve and spending-plan requirements, the PICO/HECO capital outlay process, and how universities use investment accounts, audits, and board oversight to manage restricted and unspent funds. The universities emphasized that most operating dollars are restricted to specific uses and that state support helps keep tuition low. Members asked about differences in funding levels among institutions, especially why FSU receives more funding than UCF despite lower enrollment. Officials said preeminence funding, performance funding, and special legislative appropriations explain much of the difference, and the Board of Governors noted that Florida now has four preeminent universities, with UCF nearing that status. Questions also focused on what happens to unspent carry forward money, how it is invested, and whether the Board of Governors or Legislature can require funds to be returned; officials said the money is invested conservatively, subject to board and audit oversight, and can roll forward under a detailed spending plan, though the Legislature can change funding levels. The committee also discussed capital projects, with members asking about delays, inflation, and whether more projects should be phased or funded faster; witnesses said PICO funds remain with the state until needed and are reimbursed as construction proceeds. A substantial portion of the discussion covered athletics, research, student fees, and endowments. The universities said athletics is generally expected to be self-supporting, though limited use of auxiliary or carry forward funds may be allowed for projects benefiting the broader student body. They also described the financial pressures from name, image, and likeness changes and new NCAA-related costs, and said institutions are planning for those changes now. On research, the universities explained sponsored research funding, indirect cost recovery, compliance obligations, and tech transfer, but did not provide specific commercialization revenue figures and said they would follow up. Members also asked about student fee increases, student input, counseling and wellness funding, and how housing costs affect affordability; the universities said student committees and boards review fees, and aid packaging is intended to keep student debt low. Endowments were described as being held in separate foundations/DSOs with independent investment committees and used mainly for scholarships, faculty support, and research.

Transcript Highlights:

• It doesn't change any of the enforcements or penalties to the institutions.
• issue at other institutions across the state?
• I guess, reflective, I guess, of other institutions or similar institutions across the state?
• Does that include any private institutions?
• Expecting the institutions to absorb that. Yes, ma'am.

Bills: HB42 , HB 125 , HB 1233 , HB2853 , HB3148 , HB3326 , HB3701 , HB4066 , HB4361 , HB4762 , HB4909 , HB4912 , HB42 , HB125

Committee: House Higher Education

Transcript Highlights:

• We understand the budget is tight, but these institutions are our choices.
• are calculated using the average award at public four-year institutions.
• institutions.
• And that is, it's not just students who attend public institutions.
• Like when you, when you are, you know, you're higher education institutions.

Summary: The Workforce Development Committee heard public testimony on several higher education bills. Senate Bill 5954 would expand veteran survivor tuition waiver eligibility to better align state law with federal DEA benefits, allowing eligible children and surviving spouses/domestic partners to use the waiver outside current age and time limits. The sponsor and veteran advocates said the change would help families access earned benefits; no opposition was heard, and the public hearing was closed. The committee then heard Senate Bill 5826, which would require public postsecondary institutions to provide access to medication abortion through student health centers or referrals and web-based information by the 2027-28 academic year. Supporters, including students and reproductive health advocates, said the bill would reduce barriers, travel burdens, and stigma and help students stay enrolled. Opponents, including clergy, Catholic Conference representatives, and other individuals, argued the bill promoted abortion, raised safety and moral concerns, and was outside the mission of colleges. The public hearing was closed after extensive testimony. Senate Bill 5828 would restore and adjust Washington College Grant and College Bound Scholarship awards for students attending private not-for-profit four-year institutions, using the average award at public institutions rather than the reduced formula adopted last session. The sponsor and many students, private college leaders, and business and workforce groups supported the bill as a matter of fairness, access, and student choice, while public university faculty and representatives opposed it, saying state aid should prioritize public institutions and that the bill would deepen funding inequities. The committee also heard Senate Bill 5909, which would require public baccalaureate institutions to review and potentially discontinue low-enrollment degree programs; supporters framed it as a transparency and efficiency measure, while faculty and student representatives opposed it as too blunt and potentially harmful to smaller, specialized, or equity-focused programs. No votes were taken on any of the bills during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this doesn't happen at any of our institutions... ...to the other institutions.
• And we are not just at the women's institution, but at all of our institutions, we have an aggressive
• So, you know, while that—not to go into that specific incident—but at that institution or female institutions
• You know, when things arise at the institutions, it gets to my level, I'm out there at those institutions
• One of the things that we... institutional institutions, but operationally it does not make sense.

Committee: Senate Rules

Summary: The Senate Committee on Rules first established quorum and took up several routine items, including two governor’s appointments to the Court Reporters Board, references of bills to committees, and floor acknowledgments. Heather Lynn Gonzalez’s appointment was approved 3-1, Allison Salton-Sall’s appointment was approved 4-0, and the other routine items were approved 4-0. The committee then heard testimony on two Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation appointments, Kathleen Ratliff and Joseph Tuggle, both associate directors in the Division of Adult Institutions. Senators focused heavily on the California model, staff safety, prison violence, sexual abuse prevention, retaliation concerns, and visitation. Ratliff and Tuggle said the California model is meant to balance rehabilitation with safety, that CDCR has improved communication and training, and that incidents such as the pepper-spray event at Central California Women’s Facility led to discipline, investigations, retraining, and policy review. They also described PREA reporting systems, anti-retaliation protections, statewide visiting meetings, and efforts to make visiting more family-centered and consistent. Public commenters largely supported both nominees, citing their work on rehabilitation, reentry, and sexual abuse response. The committee unanimously voted 4-0 to send both Ratliff and Tuggle to the Senate floor for confirmation. It then heard from Jason Johnson, nominated as CDCR Undersecretary of Operations. Senators questioned him about parole supervision, public safety, contraband, prison rape prevention, workplace culture, whistleblower retaliation, and repeated allegations in late-filed opposition letters. Johnson said parole risk is assessed through established scoring and supervision levels, that sex offenders are subject to GPS monitoring and treatment, and that operations use investigations, training, and collaboration with law enforcement to address contraband and misconduct. He emphasized rehabilitation, culture change, accountability, and his commitment to staff and public safety, while acknowledging criticism and the difficulty of leading a large institution. No vote on Johnson was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then it was divided amongst institutions.
• Yeah, it varies by institution. Correct, Lisa.
• We think that our two-year institutions and our four-year institutions are... ...really important if
• you want less time in your four-year institution.
• And then what differences in institutional infrastructure are just kind of by nature with what each institution

Summary: The committee met at Dakota College at Bottineau, approved the January 15, 2026 minutes, and heard an extensive campus update from Dean Corey Gorder and other DCB leaders. Gorder described the college’s affiliation with Minot State and its growing use of shared services, including business office functions, HR, institutional research, Title IX, printing, financial aid support through UND, and payroll support through NDSU. He said the arrangement lets DCB focus on its core mission while relying on system partners for specialized administrative work, and noted that accreditation concerns were not believed to limit those shared-service arrangements. He also highlighted DCB’s mission, enrollment growth, dual-credit reach across rural schools, and the college’s emphasis on nursing, dental, paramedic, farm management, and other workforce-oriented programs. Committee members asked detailed questions about dual credit, program delivery, and whether DCB’s partnerships were exclusive. Gorder said the relationships are generally collaborative rather than exclusive, that schools can choose other providers, and that many partnerships began through personal outreach and ongoing relationships with rural schools. Lisa Johnson of the university system added that transfer complaints are rare and that dual credit generally transfers well within North Dakota, though highly selective out-of-state institutions may treat credits differently. Members also asked about stipends for high school instructors, the share of K-12 versus DCB instructors, and the capacity limits in dental hygiene and other programs. Gorder said dental hygiene is capped by space and staffing, that there were more applicants than seats, and that expansion is being considered; he also said he would provide follow-up information on the paramedic program and instructor breakdowns. Gorder closed by identifying long-term challenges, including aging residence halls, recruiting faculty and staff, and the need to review low-enrollment programs. He said DCB should consider expanding into more high-demand trades such as welding, HVAC, and electrical work, and should streamline dual credit and strengthen its Minot programming. The committee then heard from the North Dakota Student Association, whose leaders outlined student priorities from the last session and the interim. Their main concerns included campus housing quality and affordability, food insecurity and food pantries, mental and physical health resources, student-led research funding, academic and career readiness, internships, and campus collaboration. They also discussed dual credit, saying it is valuable but uneven across the state, and raised questions about how to better retain students in North Dakota through the system. Members asked follow-up questions about housing, transferability of dual credit, and whether incentives could be used to encourage students to stay in-state for higher education.

Transcript Highlights:

• not warranted, we allow the institutional level to make that decision.
• component where at the institutional level, when a change in status is not warranted, we allow the institutional
• That could be a change in security level or institution.
• Can it predict that institutional misconduct?
• It is predicting institutional misconduct as designed.

Summary: The Special Commission on Correctional Consolidation and Collaboration met with DOC leadership and UMass Chan researchers to discuss Massachusetts DOC’s objective point-based classification system, with a focus on whether inmates are overclassified and how discretionary and non-discretionary overrides affect placement decisions. DOC explained the system’s history, its goals of public safety and reintegration, the initial and reclassification tools, and the use of overrides and restrictions. Staff described several non-discretionary restrictions for minimum and medium security, the limited use of discretionary overrides, and current population breakdowns showing most classified in medium security, with smaller shares in maximum and lower security. UMass Chan presented preliminary findings from a NIJ-funded study using historical DOC data from 2019 to 2022, primarily on male reclassification cases. They said the scored custody level predicted institutional misconduct well, with stronger separation among minimum, medium, and maximum groups. They also said predictive accuracy declined after applying override-informed custody levels, and that the decline appeared to be driven mainly by non-discretionary restrictions rather than discretionary overrides. The researchers noted that violent misconduct in the sample was relatively rare and that the study was based on group-level statistics, not individual cases. Commission members and guests raised concerns about whether the data captured the effects of facility conditions, historical bias, step-down and step-up decisions, and the role of civil commitment restrictions, especially Code C. DOC and UMass Chan responded that the study did not show evidence that discretionary overrides reduced accuracy, that the non-discretionary restrictions were the main factor affecting results, and that Massachusetts’ system should not be directly compared with other states because of differences in facility structure and population. The commission asked members to send follow-up data questions to staff for transmission to DOC and the researchers.

Transcript Highlights:

• Number three is Title V, also known as Hispanic Serving Institutions.
• They have a fantastic manufacturing program at their institution.
• On slide 22, it's worth mentioning Minority Serving Institutions and Hispanic Serving Institution Grants
• I was just curious in terms of their program for those institutions.
• Madam Chair, yes, so that was Hispanic Serving Institution and Minority Serving Institution grants—Title

Committee: House House Government, Elections & Indian Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• Some institutions have yet to adopt these critical measures.
• The Lemonade Tobacco Use Initiative is there to help these institutions.
• who wanted to be part of the institution.
• All right, ma'am, don't you if an institution is going to.
• You know, SACS is the only one for public institutions.

Bills: HB173 , HB184 , HB484 , HB678 , HB 1211 , HB1507 , HB1705 , HB1868 , HB2290 , HB2851 , HB2856 , HB3041 , HB3204 , HB173 , HB184

Committee: House Higher Education

Transcript Highlights:

• credit hour or three credit hours, and will it be up to the institution?
• I think that would be up to the institution.
• First, the bill specifies that all general academic teaching institutions are eligible institutions for
• Only nine institutions participated in this research program, and only 26 institutions participated in
• This bill would open it to all qualifying Texas institutions.

Bills: SB800 , SB1534 , SB2055 , SB2310 , SB2431 , SB2786 , SB3039 , SB1242

Committee: House Higher Education

Transcript Highlights:

• These are institutions that are vital to our state.
• This is about funding to students, not institutions.
• Because I think the money does get to the institution at the end.
• Some essential programs actually exist only at private institutions.
• Some essential programs actually exist only at private institutions.

Bills: HB2498 , HB2443 , HB2567 , HB2363 , HB2422

Committee: House Postsecondary Education & Workforce

Keywords: nursing education, nursing program standards, board of nursing, state board, national accreditation, accreditation body, nursing school, nurse educator, clinical simulation, simulation director, lead nurse educator, NCLEX, licensure exam pass rate, corrective action plan, technical assistance, higher education, program approval, Washington RCW, professional development, nursing licensure

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh want to talk just a institutions.
• ><c> best</c><00:50:50.640><c> of</c> the institutions with the best of the institutions with the best
• </c> I didn't rule out any institutions I didn't rule out any institutions because<01:09:26.960><c> of
• Also really important for higher education institutions themselves, public and private institutions.
• <01:25:53.360><c> them</c><01:25:53.440><c> are</c> institutions already, many of them are institutions

Committee: Senate Higher Education

Transcript Highlights:

• happen at any of our institutions?
• And we are not just at the women’s institution, but at all of our institutions, we have an aggressive
• So, you know, while that, not to go into that specific incident, but at that institution or female institutions
• You know, when things arise at the institutions and it gets to my level, I'm out there at those institutions
• Facility-wise, again, we do keep those. institutional institutions, but operationally it does not make

Committee: Senate Rules

Summary: The Senate Committee on Rules first handled several routine items, including governor’s appointments not required to appear, references to bills, and floor acknowledgments. The committee approved the appointments of Heather Lynn Gonzalez and Allison Salton-Sall to the Court Reporters Board, and then moved on to appointments required to appear from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Kathleen Ratliff and Joseph Tuggle, both proposed associate directors in CDCR’s Division of Adult Institutions, testified about their backgrounds and emphasized staff safety, rehabilitation, trauma-informed practices, and the California model. Senators focused heavily on the rollout of the California model, the August 2024 use-of-force incident at Central California Women’s Facility, sexual abuse prevention, retaliation concerns, and prison visitation. Both nominees said the department had improved communication and training, had disciplined or removed staff in response to misconduct, and was working to strengthen PREA reporting, investigations, and family visiting consistency. Public testimony was strongly supportive, and the committee voted 4-0 to send both nominations to the Senate floor. The committee then heard from Jason Johnson, nominated as CDCR Undersecretary of Operations. Johnson framed his work around rehabilitation, public safety, and culture change, and addressed concerns raised in late opposition letters and a lawsuit alleging retaliation, hostile work environment, discrimination, and whistleblower issues. He said he could not discuss pending litigation in detail, but described his leadership as focused on accountability, professional standards, and improving relationships with staff and community partners. Senators questioned him about parole supervision, risk assessment, contraband interdiction, and the Prison Rape Elimination Act response; Johnson said adult parole uses risk-based supervision and GPS for registered sex offenders, operations is working with correctional safety and law enforcement on contraband and drone interdiction, and CDCR continues to expand reporting channels and training. The committee also discussed the importance of rehabilitation and reentry programs, with Johnson saying most people return to the community and that CDCR must prepare them for successful reintegration.

Transcript Highlights:

• four-year institutions, two-year colleges, four-year institutions.
• Key purposes of those institutional waivers, as we look through the various institutions... ...institutional
• Ellison, the institutions all manage their institutional waivers on their own.
• And you can see this by institution. And you can see this by institution.
• institution.

Summary: The committee first reviewed the 2024-25 tuition waiver report for the North Dakota University System. Staff explained that waivers were reported for degree-seeking students and broken out by residency, institution, and waiver type. Members asked about partial versus full waivers, institutional discretion, athletic waivers, and whether campuses have published guardrails or transparency requirements. Staff said most waivers are set by institutions, with some statutory and board-required categories, and that athletic waivers are a small share of total waiver dollars. The report showed total gross tuition of $354.5 million, tuition waived of $38.9 million, and 11,193 of 42,040 students receiving some waiver. Members also discussed how waivers affect net tuition revenue, housing and food collections, and whether campuses are using waivers strategically compared with scholarships and other funding sources. The committee then heard a presentation on tuition rates by campus and State Board policy. Staff explained the board’s tuition factors for resident, Minnesota reciprocity, contiguous-state/U.S. nonresident, and international students, and noted that campuses often seek exceptions based on program-specific competition and enrollment goals. Members asked whether rates are based on cost or competition, and staff said campuses typically bring forward estimates and market comparisons when requesting special rates. The presentation also reviewed general fund appropriations versus net tuition revenue by campus, and members discussed how local tuition decisions and waivers do not directly affect the state funding formula, though they do affect institutional revenue and reserves. Questions were also raised about the Higher Learning Commission’s financial composite indicator and how it differs from the more intuitive reserve and revenue figures. The committee next received a broad overview of non-higher-education entities affiliated with the State Board of Higher Education, beginning with NDSU agriculture-related units. Dr. Greg Lardy described the State Board of Agricultural Research and Education, the NDSU Extension Service, the Agricultural Experiment Station, and the branch research centers, emphasizing their statewide role in crop and livestock research, extension education, and county-based outreach. He outlined funding mixes for extension, the experiment station, and branch stations, noting that grants and contracts support both research and education, while the agronomy seed farm is self-funded through seed sales. Members asked about the new and vacant FTE pool, R1 research status, matching requirements for grants, and whether state appropriations count toward research expenditures. Dr. Lardy also highlighted major research impacts, including crop varieties, virtual fencing, AI-assisted weed control, and NDAWN weather data. The Northern Crops Institute and the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute also presented. NCI described its role in market development, technical services, and education for regional agriculture, its governance through the Northern Crops Council, and its funding from state appropriations, other states, and earned revenue. Members asked about the source of out-of-state funding, intellectual property, and the institute’s international reach. UGPTI then outlined its transportation research, federal and state funding structure, and work on road and bridge condition assessments, travel demand modeling, and workforce training. No votes were taken during the portion of the meeting reflected in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> in fact I think 80 or 81 institutions in fact I think 80 or 81 institutions participating.<00:08
• They will see different institution.
• </c> And the total for public institutions And the total for public institutions in<00:36:03.839><c>
• is a public institution, that is a public institution, um<00:37:52.160><c> the</c><00:37:52.400><c>
• </c> four-year institutions. four-year institutions.

Committee: House Higher Education Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• to students from grants supported by Hispanic-serving institutions, grants for minority-serving institutions
• minority serving institutions for those anapese grants.
• Pacific Islander-Serving Institution, or AANAPISI.
• The function of that institution. You see what I'm saying?
• And as I think about the 87 institutions that make up AICCU, that's 87 institutions and 87 communities

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee held an oversight hearing on how federal actions are affecting California higher education, with opening remarks from the chair and members emphasizing the importance of state-federal shared governance and the need to protect access, affordability, and campus diversity. The first panel included leaders from the CSU, University of the Pacific, California Community Colleges, and UC, who described broad impacts from federal grant terminations, changes to student aid, loan limits, visa and immigration policy, and proposed reductions to research support. Testimony focused on the elimination of Grad PLUS loans, caps on Parent PLUS and Pell-related changes, the loss or suspension of hundreds of grants, and the resulting harm to student support services, research, workforce pipelines, food assistance, and health care training. UC and CSU representatives warned of major losses in research funding, indirect cost reimbursement, and student opportunities, while community college leaders highlighted uncertainty around federal grants and the need to maintain services for low-income, first-generation, undocumented, and other vulnerable students. Committee members asked how the state could respond, including through intersegmental partnerships, dual enrollment, transfer pathways, and support for basic needs and nutrition programs. Witnesses said California could help by sustaining financial aid, protecting minority-serving institution programs, and investing in research, housing, and workforce development. Several speakers stressed that federal changes were creating instability for students and campuses, and that the effects would likely be long-lasting, especially in health care, teaching, STEM, and social work pipelines. A second panel then focused on equitable access. The California Student Aid Commission described state efforts such as the $3.9 billion investment in aid programs, the Cal Grant system, the Dream Act, and possible reforms to better serve adult learners, foster youth, undocumented students, and students with dependents. The Los Angeles Community College District reported that federal cuts and policy shifts are discouraging students from applying for aid, threatening TRIO and MSI/HSI-funded services, and reducing support for basic needs, counseling, and workforce programs. The Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities and the CSU Academic Senate echoed concerns about FAFSA confusion, international student restrictions, grant losses, and the erosion of equity-focused programs. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and discussed possible state responses.

Transcript Highlights:

• at that institution.
• Or perhaps you transfer from one institution to another; the credit that you were awarded at one institution
• Right now, if an institution, institution number one, where you start, has a three for the requirement
• Right now, if an institution, institution number one, where you start, has a three for the requirement
• I run a small institute in Harvard Square now, the Small Planet Institute. That's great.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Higher Education

Summary: The Joint Committee on Higher Education held its first hearing and heard testimony on a wide range of bills, including hunger-free campuses, FAFSA completion, early college/college-in-high-school programs, banning legacy preferences, AP credit consistency, and tuition equity for the Stockbridge School of Agriculture. Committee leaders opened by outlining the hearing process and noting the three-minute testimony limit. Legislators and advocates generally framed the bills as equity and access measures aimed at improving college affordability, student success, and workforce development. Representative Vargas testified for H. 1466 and H. 1467, arguing that hunger-free campus should be codified because many public college and community college students face food insecurity, and that FAFSA completion should be improved through individualized outreach and an opt-out or completion requirement. Senator Lovely, the Greater Boston Food Bank, and other advocates supported the hunger-free campus bill, citing data that 44% of public university and community college students experienced food insecurity in 2023 and that food insecurity harms graduation rates. Femi Stoltz and Shanti Lopez Toro backed the FAFSA bill, saying many students miss out on Pell grants and need direct support; they pointed to state examples such as Louisiana and to recent state action requiring FAFSA awareness. Committee members asked about the federal FAFSA rollout, regional equity in food access, and the need for long-term funding and data collection. A large panel supported H. 1455 on college and high school/early college, including former Chair Roy, the Massachusetts Alliance for Early College, a student graduate, MBAE, and Tripp Jones. They described early college as a proven model that helps low-income and first-generation students, improves degree attainment, and supports workforce needs; witnesses said the goal is to scale from about 9,000 students and 55 partnerships toward 22,000 to 25,000 students by 2030, with possible future growth beyond that. Members raised questions about funding, public-private partnerships, parental involvement, faculty development, and whether the bill should include data review and more standardized policies across institutions. Representative Garcia also testified for H. 1432 on AP credit, saying students should receive consistent credit for AP scores of 3, 4, or 5. Senator Edwards and James Murphy testified for the legacy preference ban, arguing it is unfair and rooted in exclusionary history; they said some states have already banned legacy preferences in public and private institutions. Finally, UMass Dean Michael Fox, alumnus Dan Mayer, and student Jake Rasmussen supported S. 920 to include Stockbridge associate degree programs in MassEducate, saying tuition equity would help enrollment and support Massachusetts agriculture and green-industry jobs.

Transcript Highlights:

• These are institutions that are vital to our state.
• These are institutions that are vital to our state.
• This is about funding to students, not institutions.
• Because I think the money does get to the institution at the end.
• It would be a Christian institution.

Summary: The Postsecondary Education & Workforce Committee held courtesy hearings on three bills before moving to executive session. House Bill 2443 would create an Armed Forces Reserve post-secondary education grant for members of the Armed Forces Reserve and their spouses or dependents, with repayment required unless the reservist serves one year for each year of benefit received. The prime sponsor said the bill is intended to extend educational support similar to what Washington National Guard members already receive. Testimony was generally supportive, emphasizing military readiness, recruitment, and fairness to reservists; one clarification was made that the bill applies to Armed Forces Reserve members broadly, not just the Army Reserve. House Bill 2567 would restore Washington College Grant and College Bound Scholarship award amounts for students attending four-year private, not-for-profit institutions. The sponsor and many students, school leaders, and private college representatives argued the 2025 cuts were inequitable, harmed low-income and first-generation students, and limited student choice. Supporters said the state’s dedicated financial aid account has grown and that the cuts disproportionately affected students at private institutions. Opponents, including representatives from public universities, argued state dollars should prioritize public institutions and questioned whether aid should be shifted away from state schools. Testimony was mixed but heavily pro, with sign-ins reported at 1,584 total, including 1,572 in support. House Bill 2498 would change nursing education oversight by limiting the Board of Nursing’s authority where programs are nationally accredited and by expediting approval for new programs. The sponsor and several community college leaders said the bill would reduce unnecessary barriers, speed program expansion, and help address the nursing shortage, especially in rural areas. The Board of Nursing, nursing educators, employers, and professional associations opposed the bill, arguing that state oversight is needed for public safety, Washington-specific workforce needs, and consistent standards, and that the board is already revising its rules through an open process. The committee then took executive action on two other bills: it passed Second Substitute House Bill 2363, allowing supervised music therapy practice for up to six months while exam results are verified, with an amendment delaying implementation to January 1, 2028; and it passed Substitute House Bill 2422, shifting private security guard license fees from applicants to employers and delaying implementation to November 1, 2026, by a 9-7 vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• happen at any of our institutions?
• And we are not just at the women's institution, but all of our institutions, we have an aggressive push
• So, you know, while that, not to go into that specific incident, at that institution or female institutions
• When things arise at the institutions that get to my level, I'm out there at those institutions, meeting
• resources and solutions into the institutions.

Summary: The committee first handled routine actions, including quorum, governor’s appointments not required to appear, references to bills, and floor acknowledgments, with those items approved on 3-1 or 4-0 votes and left open for add-ons where noted. It then heard testimony on several CDCR appointments: Kathleen Ratliff and Joseph Tuggle as associate directors for adult institutions, and later Jason Johnson as Undersecretary of Operations. All three nominees emphasized long careers in corrections, support from family and colleagues, and a commitment to public safety, rehabilitation, and improving staff and institutional culture. Much of the questioning focused on the California model, staff safety, sexual abuse prevention, use-of-force incidents, visitation, and rehabilitation. Ratliff and Tuggle said the California model was poorly communicated at rollout but is intended to improve both staff wellness and rehabilitation, not weaken security. They described training, root-cause reviews, statewide calls, and direct engagement with staff and incarcerated people. On a widely criticized pepper-spray incident at Central California Women’s Facility, Ratliff said staff were disciplined, some terminated, and the facility received additional training on de-escalation, communication, use of force, and report writing. On sexual abuse and retaliation concerns, both nominees pointed to PREA training, multiple reporting channels, anti-retaliation monitoring, and a zero-tolerance policy. Members also pressed the nominees on visitation consistency, family reunification, contraband, and the San Quentin transition program. CDCR leaders said visitation is essential to rehabilitation and that the department is working toward more consistent statewide rules and a more family-friendly visiting environment. They also said contraband interdiction is being strengthened through K-9 searches, drone interdiction, and information sharing. Johnson, whose confirmation drew late opposition letters and a lawsuit alleging retaliation and workplace culture problems, said he was driving culture change, had improved reentry and community partnerships, and viewed rehabilitation as central to CDCR’s mission. After public support from former incarcerated people, advocates, and nonprofit leaders, the committee voted 4-0 to advance the appointments to the Senate floor.