Transcript Highlights:

• Was there a vetting process? How did the DFL party not know that that could be a possibility?
• We have a vetting process, and we ask all of our candidates to fill out a form to certify where they
• you explain was there a vetting process you explain was there a vetting process how<00:08:55.880
• and we ask all of our a vetting process and we ask all of our uh<00:09:03.760> candidates<00:
• You look at the way that legislative disputes are resolved, things work themselves out. It's early.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: Minnesota House DFL leaders held a press conference at the start of the 2025 session to argue that the election produced a tied House and that neither party has a majority. They said Minnesota law requires 68 members for a quorum, rejected the Republican view that 67 members would be enough to organize the House, and said Democrats would use parliamentary tools, including denial of quorum, if Republicans refused a power-sharing agreement. They framed their position as preserving the will of voters and called the Republican approach an illegitimate power grab. A major topic was the disputed House seat involving Brad Tabke/Tabkey and the related District 40B residency issue involving Curtis Johnson. Democrats said court testimony showed Tabke won and that overturning the result would disenfranchise thousands of voters, while Republicans were accused of trying to use a temporary advantage to force a special election. On the residency case, Democrats said they had a vetting process, disagreed with the trial court’s ruling, and noted Johnson chose not to appeal. They said they expect David Gottfried to win the upcoming special election on January 28 and that a certificate could issue by February 3. The leaders also discussed how a power-sharing arrangement could work if the House remains tied: committee chairs would be split 50-50, each side could set agendas, and speakership duties could alternate daily. They said this would allow hearings on issues such as fraud oversight, the budget, energy, education, the Social Security tax, the nuclear moratorium, and immigration-related proposals, though they described some Republican priorities as nonstarters. No formal votes were taken, and the event ended with Democrats saying they were still negotiating and hoped to reach an agreement before session begins.

Transcript Highlights:

• As a result, we are thrown into the state's political system in the negotiation process.
• The process of what we went through is that we were up against the wall many times and...
• Denial of reasonable accommodations occurs without actually engaging in the process.
• When I was looking into this, I asked the question online: how does this process work?
• They have reached out to us, and we are in the process of having a contract with them to help us.

Transcript Highlights:

• Can you describe that process? Sure.
• I mean, it was the legislative process, so I didn't really—I mean, the legislative process is the legislative
• process.
• The process requires a review of the legislators.
• -E.C. contract dispute.

Summary: The hearing resumed in the Legislative Ethics Board matter involving Tara Simmons after the board confirmed no ex parte communications had occurred overnight. Respondent’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 violated ethics rules by combining legislative support for AEJG with a personal donation to the organization. Board staff opposed the motion, arguing the evidence showed Simmons’s legislative and personal dealings were intertwined. After a recess for deliberation, the board denied the motion to dismiss, and the hearing moved into the defense case. The first defense witness was Sharon Navas, executive director of the Equity and Education Coalition (EEC). Navas testified that she met Simmons in 2018, later hired her, and took steps to separate Simmons’s legislative duties from her work for EEC. She said Simmons was never paid for lobbying or legislative acts, that her compensation came from unrestricted funds, and that the organization used written ethics-compliance language and a formal scope of work. Navas also described the proviso-funded dashboard project involving Anthony Powers and Chris Stanley, testifying that Simmons was not involved in the project’s day-to-day work, did not attend the meetings about the dispute, and was not part of the alleged contract disagreement. On cross-examination, staff focused on the contract documents, the dashboard work, and whether the scope of work matched the parties’ understanding. Tara Simmons then testified in her own defense. She described her background, legislative career, disability accommodations, and extensive efforts to seek ethics guidance from House counsel and board-related materials before taking outside employment or supporting provisos. She said she relied on prior ethics advice when separating her legislative role from outside work and when seeking provisos for AEJG and EEC. Simmons also addressed her relationship with Anthony Powers, describing it as a friendship rooted in criminal justice reform work and prior collaboration. The hearing was still in the middle of Simmons’s direct testimony when the transcript excerpt ended, with no final ruling on the merits or disposition of the allegations.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:15:25.920> of able to support the process of able to support the process of implementing
• um, it sets a timeline um, or a process and<00:23:14.799> a<00:23:14.960> process<00:23
• agreement on the that one big dispute agreement on the that one big dispute here<00:40:51.920>
• It lays out a process for reports and alerting the relevant commissioners immediately.
• It lays out a process for um directly.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we have a process. And determined by our classification system.
• So this bargaining process just continued.
• So then we'll look a little bit now at that funding process. Once we get those...
• So we've actually now gone through that process.
• That re-opener provides a link between the state budgeting process and all of our agreements.

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:

• I want to note that we will be reinstituting a suspense file, and the details about that process are
• when utilizing the Chapter 8 sale process, affording property owners an administrative remedy.
• The Chapter 8 sale process affords property owners an administrative remedy if the property owner disputes
• The Chapter 8 sales process allows county tax collectors to dispose of these properties in a sensible
• Come on, and I'm really patient and really, really committed in, yeah, into dispute. Thank you.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation held its first regular hearing of the 2025-26 session, adopted its proposed committee rules on a 5-0 vote, and reinstated a suspense file for bills with fiscal impacts over the committee threshold. The chair explained that only AB 418 would be eligible for an immediate vote, while several other measures would be held for suspense consideration because of budget constraints. AB 330 was pulled by the author. AB 418 by Wilson, which would create a clearer process and administrative remedy for county Chapter 8 tax sales, received support from county tax collectors and housing and taxpayer groups. Supporters said the bill would add transparency, due process, and a noticed public hearing for negotiated sales of tax-defaulted properties, while helping counties dispose of low-value or problematic properties more efficiently. The committee voted 6-0 to send AB 418 to Appropriations. Several other bills were heard and then referred to suspense: AB 27 by Chau, which would exclude Chiquita Canyon landfill relief payments from gross income and protect recipients’ eligibility for public benefits, drew strong support from affected residents and environmental advocates; AB 258 by Conley would increase funding for California fairs, with supporters emphasizing fairs’ emergency-response role; AB 397 by Gonzalez would expand the California Young Child Tax Credit into a broader child tax credit for older children; and AB 398 by Aaron would set a $300 minimum refundable Cal EITC benefit. The committee also heard AB 231 by Tye, which would offer a tax credit to microbusinesses that hire formerly incarcerated people, and it too was referred to suspense after supportive testimony from reentry and small-business advocates.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, sort of the way the CPUC process works, procedural process.
• We have concerns with the audit, mostly about process.
• process.
• And when our focus on making this process...
• And when our focus on making this process...

Summary: The committee met as a subcommittee for much of the hearing because it initially lacked a quorum, then later established one and began taking votes. The state auditor gave a status update on ongoing audits, including several JALAC-requested audits in progress, other statutory audits, staffing growth in his office, and the number of new JALAC audits his office could start in the coming months. The committee also heard that one audit request on Prop. 28 was held, and another PUC-related request was moved off consent and heard on the regular calendar. Members then heard and discussed several audit requests. Senator Cervantes presented a request to audit California fusion centers, with witnesses from the FBI and ACLU supporting the need for transparency and oversight; opponents argued the request was politically motivated and could interfere with counterterrorism work. Senator Allen presented a request on CPUC enforcement of Rule 21 interconnection timelines for solar and storage projects, supported by industry and school representatives who described long delays and financial harm, while CPUC staff said the issue was being addressed through workshops and a formal proceeding. Senator Perez presented a request to audit Caltrans’ administration of the former SR 710 extension properties and affordable sales program, citing tenant complaints about maintenance, pricing, and transparency; Caltrans said it was working to complete sales and improve administration. Senator Umberg presented a request to audit the Orange County Board of Education over transparency, contracting, litigation spending, charter oversight, and whistleblower issues, while board representatives said there was no factual basis for an audit and that existing legal remedies had not been invoked. After quorum was established, the committee approved the consent-calendar DMV license revocation audit and then approved the PUC utility timeliness audit and the Caltrans SR 710 audit. The fusion center audit was left on call after a split vote, and the Orange County Board of Education audit continued with testimony from the board’s representatives after the committee had already moved on to other business.

Transcript Highlights:

• Again, that's dealing with service of process.
• That is how you initiate that process.
• Again, that's dealing with service of process.
• That is how you initiate that process.
• There's no disputing that.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Industry and Business reconvened to work on House Bill 1584, which would create a new pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) regulatory structure within the Insurance Department. Insurance Commissioner John Godfrey and Deputy Commissioner John Arnold explained a revised set of amendments negotiated with Representative Casper and the North Dakota Pharmacists Association. They said the bill largely kept the House policy intact but added technical corrections, narrowed some references in Chapter 19-02, created a separate PBM licensing class, set a delayed effective date for licensing, and established emergency authority so the department could begin building the new division. They also described the proposal to fund the program through existing trust fund resources, PBM license fees, and a transfer of about $1.6 million from the prescription drug transparency program fund, while allowing the department flexibility to hire needed attorneys, pharmacists, and examiners. A major point of discussion was Section 10, which would have required the Attorney General to represent and bear costs for lawsuits related to the bill. Chief Deputy Attorney General Claire Ness said the language was too broad and would go beyond normal constitutional defense work, potentially obligating her office to cover all lawsuits against the commissioner or state under the section. Representative Casper said the intent was only to avoid the Insurance Department having to seek emergency funding for litigation, and both he and department officials said they were open to removing the section or narrowing it. After further discussion, the committee agreed to remove Section 10 from the amendments. The committee then voted 4-0 to adopt the amended amendment package, and then voted 4-0 to give House Bill 1584 a do pass recommendation as amended and refer it to Appropriations. Members noted the bill was still a work in progress, but said the revised version was intended to move the PBM regulation issue forward while continuing discussion in the appropriations process.

Transcript Highlights:

• process?
• I do not dispute that for one second.
• I assume it was the legislative process or a rulemaking process as we have here in our state.
• Chair, in a very meticulous process, but we're not creating...
• Chair, and Representative, I understand that that's in the process.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's led to a very robust process where, just to go over it, we have a statutory process in place that
• It's a very comprehensive process.
• You know you can benefit from this inspection process and get your overall process down.
• Is there any mentoring through that process?
• is a generational process.

Summary: The Banking and Insurance Committee heard a series of presentations focused on mitigation, flood and wind resilience, and insurance discounts. Kevin Guthrie of the Florida Division of Emergency Management outlined several funding streams for mitigation, including federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program dollars, BRIC grants, flood mitigation assistance, and the state hurricane loss mitigation program. He emphasized the new Elevate Florida initiative, which will use about $400 million initially to elevate or reconstruct flood-prone homes, starting with National Flood Insurance Program properties and severe repetitive-loss homes, with no current per-home cap. Guthrie said the state will contract directly with licensed vendors and aims to reduce future flood losses, lower insurance costs, and keep properties on the tax rolls rather than relying on buyouts. Insurance Commissioner Mike Yaworski described Florida’s windstorm mitigation discount program, explaining that the 1802 inspection form is used to assess a home’s overall “envelope” and determine statutory discounts. He said the office is updating the program based on a new wind loss study, with likely changes including greater recognition of roof types such as metal roofs and possible territorial risk adjustments. He also said the Legislature now requires the office to revisit the study every five years. Stephen Fielder of the Department of Financial Services reported on My Safe Florida Home, noting that the program offers inspections and grants for roof and opening protections, has completed more than 100,000 inspections, and has reimbursed hundreds of millions of dollars. He said the department has validated its discount calculations with insurers and that the program is intended to help homeowners reduce premiums through verified mitigation work. Michael Newman of the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety said Florida’s building code is nationally leading and that post-Ian surveys found no wind-driven structural damage in buildings built after adoption of the code. He argued that mitigation should be treated as a system, not isolated upgrades, and suggested adding Fortified designation to the state’s mitigation form to better document verified resilience improvements. Bill Truex, a county commissioner and builder, stressed the need to educate homeowners about floodproofing and roof choices, citing examples where flood panels prevented damage and noting that asphalt shingles often do not last as long in Florida as their marketing suggests. In panel discussion, senators asked about program eligibility, outreach to elderly and digitally challenged residents, contractor vetting, roof-life disclosures, and whether flood insurance should be more broadly required. Officials said outreach will include call centers and in-person assistance, and several participants urged better consumer disclosure and more data-driven guidance on roof and mitigation choices.

Transcript Highlights:

• They also cited instances where AI helped process IT invoices, improving the processing time from some
• The second step is the data processed by the credit card networks.
• The banks have nothing to do with that process. Card networks have nothing to do with that process.
• They have to investigate the process.
• Swipe fee process. What if small businesses closed down?

Bills: SB231, SB584, SB600, SB668, SB841, SB986, SB1003, SB1244, SB1625, SB1960, SB1963, SB1964, SB2026, SB2056, SB2368

Keywords: temporary emergency electric energy facility, temporary generation, emergency power, backup generation, mobile generator, portable generator, grid resilience, power outage restoration, transmission and distribution utility, TDU, Public Utility Commission of Texas, PUCT, Utilities Code Section 39.918, competitive bidding, lease authorization, emergency procurement, bulk power system, locational marginal pricing, reliability model, black start

Transcript Highlights:

• H.U. 4516 by Gainor really prohibiting the use of Chinese technology to collect process transfers stored
• for disputed losses under personal automobile or residential property insurance policies referred to
• AB 4670 by Manuel, ruling to dispute resolution for enforcement actions against certain long-term. care
• HB 4987 by Canales ruling the alternative dispute. resolution procedure regarding certain matters under
• H.J.R. 192 by Rodriguez-Ramos, processing a constitution member.

Bills: HB9, HB22, HB908, HB1392

Keywords: property tax, ad valorem tax, tangible personal property, income-producing property, business personal property, tax exemption, local government finance, appraisal district, chief appraiser, rendition statement, property tax relief, small business, commercial property, leased property, related business entity, unified business enterprise, tax situs, Texas Tax Code, local taxing unit, constitutional amendment

Transcript Highlights:

• > between<00:20:50.000> groups<00:20:50.280> of<00:20:50.440> members dispute
• between groups of members dispute between groups of members and<00:20:53.080> so<00:20:53.679
• can get involved in is interpretation of the Minnesota Constitution, so they won't wade into the disputes
• <00:31:50.480> in<00:31:50.679> the wait into the dis the disputes in the wait into
• the dis the disputes in the house<00:31:51.600> but<00:31:51.880> in<00:31:51.960>

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House DFL leaders held a press event outlining their priorities and criticizing Republicans for what they described as illegitimate or sham proceedings in the Minnesota House. Speakers said Democrats would focus on affordability, workers, families, and protecting prior DFL accomplishments, while opposing efforts they said would roll back paid family and medical leave, clean energy, Dreamer access to higher education, reproductive rights, consumer protections, and universal school meals. Individual members highlighted issue areas for the coming session: Children and Families Chair Kaohly Her emphasized child care, food security, and support for parents and caregivers; Health Finance and Policy Chair Robert Bierman said Democrats would expand access to dental, maternal, and mental health care, lower prescription drug costs, and address hospital service cuts; Commerce co-chair K.H. Her focused on consumer protections and maintaining out-of-pocket caps on drugs like insulin, inhalers, and EpiPens; Housing co-chair Mike Howard discussed the housing shortage, rising rents, and corporate ownership of homes; and Rep. Emma Greenman framed the agenda as a push to curb corporate power and monopolies. A substantial portion of the event and Q&A centered on the House power-sharing dispute and the effort to deny quorum after the controversy over Rep. Brad Tabke. Leaders said Republicans had rejected co-chairs, equal committee membership, and co-speaker arrangements, and they argued the GOP was trying to use its temporary advantage to control the chamber and potentially force special elections. They also discussed the legal status of the House after adjournment, the lack of a legal hopper for bill filing, and the possibility of court review of whether the House is duly organized. In response to questions, DFL leaders said they were still open to negotiation and expected eventual collaboration, but maintained that Republicans had broken the power-sharing agreement. They said the February budget forecast and the governor’s budget would shape the session’s formal work, and one speaker noted that the ERA remains a caucus priority and that the DFL would continue pursuing it when the opportunity arises.

Transcript Highlights:

• In the taxes working group, there was dispute about the sales tax exemption for data centers, and it
• taxes uh working group there was dispute taxes uh working group there was dispute about<00:13:39.680
• So, they are processing the things up.
• So, they are processing the work<00:18:49.440> as<00:18:49.679> we<00:18:49.840> are
• the work that we're diligence to process the work that we're creating.<00:19:13.760> Are<00:19

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There was some dispute<00:16:04.639> um<00:16:04.800> last<00:16:05.040> time<00
• whether that dispute um last time over whether that agency<00:16:07.199> was<00:16:07.519>
• Stuff that typically isn't going to create a lot of dispute.
• <01:01:55.599> to you can go through that process to you can go through that process to determine
• iterative process with law enforcement. iterative process with law enforcement.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• arise the department is able to go in and resolve those disputes.
• Where it would resolve those disputes.
• We also resolve those types of disputes.
• Being in a Dylan process like this.
• without utilizing the eviction process? without utilizing the eviction process?

Keywords: 1191, senate, all