Transcript Highlights:

• supporters, friends, Coleman. community supporters, friends, Coleman. community supporters, friends,
• May they be in all of our communities. May they be in all of our communities.
• receives a the veteran community receives a the veteran community receives a favorable report.
• So that that seems community, you know. So that that seems community, you know.
• hearing sciences on communication hearing sciences on communication disorders.

Bills: SB 66, SB 317, SB 393, SB 397, SB 456, SB 614, SB 628, SB 629, SB 636, SB 715, SB 731, SB 801, SB 872, SB 905, SB 986, SB 1012, SB 1013, SB 1015, SB 1032, SB 1113, SB 1181, SB 1212, SB 1241, SB 1250, SB 1278, SB 1285, SB 1376, SB 1444, SB 1449, SB 1524, SB 1525, SB 1528, SB 1556, SB 1588, SB 1660, SB 1704, SB 1708, SB 1802, SB 1833, SB 1844, SB 1854, SB 1863, SB 1957, SB 1959, SB 1965, SB 1999, SB 2035, SB 2056, SB 2082, SB 2119, SB 2138, SB 2165, SB 2199, SB 2201, SB 2203, SB 2245, SB 2284, SB 2419, SB 2422, SB 2452, SB 2487, SB 2523, SB 2529, SB 2533, SB 2541, SB 2586, SB 2595, SB 2605, SB 2615, SB 2675, SB 2690, SB 2717, SB 2753, SB 2778, SB 2835, SB 2841, SB 2891, SB 2929, SB 2933, SB 3016, SB 3039, SB 3044, HB 912, HB 2525, SJR 3, SB 5, SB 29, SB 326, SB 494, SB 530, SB 769, SB 783, SB 963, SB 1238, SB 1271, SB 1786, SB 1967, SB 2312, SB 72, SB 616, SB 1143, SB 1172, SB 1267, SB 1273, SB 1506, SB 1759, SB 2361, SB 1, SB 260, SB 1637, SJR 36, SJR 50, SJR 63, SJR 59, SCR 12, SCR 39, SCR 48, SCR 19, SB 2023, SB 1524, SB 2422, SB 2119, SB 2753, SB 1863, SB 62, SB 666, SB 847, SB 284, SB 854, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 1505, SB 583, SB 507, SB 1434, SB 1376, SB 1772, SB 2016, SB 1163, SB 1122, SB 731, SB 397, SB 508, SB 1436, SB 287, SB 261, SB 1882, SB 393, SB 1791, SB 209, SB 2429, SB 1999, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 510, SB 1085, SB 1975, SB 2717, SB 1262, SB 636, SB 2056, SB 884, SB 517, SB 1200, SB 1845, SB 2681, SB 2199, SB 2458, SB 801, SB 2533, SB 3014, SB 3013, SB 758, SB 1013, SB 2797, SB 2076, SB 2876, SB 2284, SB 2929, SB 2595, SB 715, SB 1640, SB 1241, SB 2538, SB 1449, SB 2529, SB 986, SB 1181, SB 1359, SB 2245, SB 410, SB 1234, SB 456, SB 1012, SB 2926, SB 2138, SB 2615, SB 2972, SB 2841, SB 3016, SB 1856, SB 2035, SB 1528, SB 1373, SB 672, SB 2891, SB 1854, SB 317, SB 2539, SB 2532, SB 1250, SB 2082, SB 2203, SB 1285, SB 1959, SB 1454, SB 2520, SB 2541, SB 1708, SB 1237, SB 1844, SB 1586, SB 3039, SB 2819, SB 66, SB 629, SB 1015, SB 2342, SB 2903, SB 2933, SB 1965, SB 2477, SB 3029, SB 2605, SB 2419, SB 1957, SB 375, SB 250, SB 777, SB 628, SB 2523, SB 2367, SB 2703, SB 2608, SB 2778, SB 3044, SB 2965, SB 2521, SB 865, SB 1032, SB 2165, SB 2501, SB 2675, SB 2452, SB 2835, SB 872, SB 1212, SB 1278, SB 1588, SB 1602, SB 1704, SB 1723, SB 1833, SB 1858, SB 1946, SB 2009, SB 2177, SB 2460, SB 2785, SB 2373, SB 1660, SB 614, SB 867, SB 1608, SB 1525, SB 905, SB 640, SB 2487, SB 1698, SB 383, SB 705, SB 748, SB 1113, SB 1117, SB 1802, SB 2340, SB 2586, SB 2680, SB 2690, SB 2994, SB 2747, SB 1950, SB 913, SB 1071, SB 1086, SB 1087, SB 1483, SB 1444, SB 1553, SB 1556, SB 1703, SB 2133, SB 2297, SB 2298, SB 2622, SB 2955, SB 3059, SB 2782, SB 2781, SB 2637, SB 2633, SB 2337, SB 2334, SB 1861, SB 2043, SB 1367, SB 946, SB 945, SB 2857, SB 128, SB 571, SB 1263, SB 3058, SB 612, SB 2221, SB 2587, SB 2044, SB 2363, SB 2713, HB 1109, HB 1392, HB 22, HB 2525, HB 3093, HB 517, HB 912, HB 1130, HB 142, HB 1689, HB 2018, SB 2311, SB 1986, SB 2565, SB 2943, SB 1888, SB 2417, SB 3048, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 3036, SB 3057, SB 3056, SB 3043, SB 3037, SB 3050, SB 3063, SB 3047, SB 3035, HJR 98, HJR 99, HB 136, HB 2884, HB 1393, HB 2730, HB 1399, HB 1244, HB 467, HB 331, HB 2559, SB 66, SB 456, SB 628, SB 1012, SB 1015, SB 1032, SB 1241, SB 1376, SB 1708, SB 1959, SB 1965, SB 2035, SB 2199, SB 2245, SB 2284, SB 2419, SB 2523, SB 2529, SB 2541, SB 2595, SB 2605, SB 2778, SB 2933, SB 3039, SB 3044, SB 1524, SB 1863, SB 2119, SB 2422, SB 2753, SB 1844, SB 2533, SR 417, SR 500, SR 501, SR 502, HCR 128, HB 23, HB 45, HB 104, HB 519, HB 748, HB 791, HB 1056, HB 1481, HB 3181, HB 3211, HB 4044, HB 4290, HB 23, HB 45, HB 104, HB 519, HB 748, HB 791, HB 1056, HB 1481, HB 3181, HB 3211, HB 4044, HB 4290

Keywords: disability, supported decision-making, legal assistance, confidentiality, access to justice, autonomy, civil rights, advocacy, monuments, memorials, public property, historical significance, civil penalties, local governance, SB 393, Sparks, Middleton, local government, political subdivision, public securities

Transcript Highlights:

• school community.
• Community schools seem to be doing a great job in engaging community.
• strong community... ...exemplary community schools framework, which was developed with strong community
• community-based partners.
• And the community was very happy.

Summary: The joint informational and oversight hearing focused on community schools in California, with members emphasizing that the purpose was to examine effectiveness, implementation, and sustainability rather than the Governor’s budget proposal. The California Department of Education described the California Community Schools Partnership Program, created in 2021 and funded with more than $4 billion, including planning, implementation, extension, and county coordination grants. Officials said nearly 2,500 schools are participating and highlighted the statewide technical assistance structure, including the State Transformational Assistance Center, eight regional centers, county offices, and CDE support. Researchers from the Learning Policy Institute and UCLA presented early findings and implementation data. LPI reported reductions in chronic absenteeism and suspensions, along with gains in math and English language arts, with especially large benefits for Black students and other historically underserved groups. UCLA described the Annual Progress Report as a statewide improvement tool showing growth in capacity-building, shared decision-making, whole-child supports, and continuous improvement. Members asked about how the reports measure outcomes, how to interpret outliers, and how to distinguish community schools effects from other concurrent initiatives; presenters said matched comparison methods and deeper case-study work are being used, with additional statewide findings expected in June. Panelists from Oakland Unified, LAUSD/UTLA, San Diego Unified, and advocacy organizations described key elements of success: integrated student supports, strong family and student engagement, collaborative leadership, community partnerships, and school-site decision-making. They gave examples such as wellness centers, dual enrollment, student senates, parent leadership, and community campaigns that built trust and increased participation. Members also raised concerns about sustainability, implementation fidelity, and whether community schools improve participation in LCAP processes. Presenters said major barriers include unclear early guidance, the need for a mindset shift away from top-down models, and uncertainty about long-term funding for coordinators and other staff. The panel’s recommendations centered on stable ongoing funding, stronger technical assistance, shared governance, and embedding community schools practices into district and county systems.

Transcript Highlights:

• Strengthen communities.
• populations in our community.
• It assures that community has local control of what the needs are in their own community.
• When our public safety net fails, our community turns to our community-based providers.
• to the communities we serve.

Summary: The Senate and Assembly Human Services Committees held a special oversight hearing on California’s 2026-27 Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) state plan, a federal anti-poverty funding stream. Committee members opened by citing statewide poverty and homelessness data and said the hearing was meant to review how CSBG dollars are used, how local agencies respond to community needs, and how the state is preparing for possible federal funding cuts. Jason Wimbley of the Department of Community Services and Development (CSD) explained that California’s CSBG network works through 60 organizations in 58 counties, serving about 1.5 million low-income Californians in 2023, and that the state received $68.4 million in federal CSBG funds in fiscal year 2025. He described the program as flexible funding used for housing, employment, education, food, health, transportation, and emergency response, and noted that the federal administration had proposed eliminating CSBG, though the Senate Appropriations Committee had voted to fully fund it for the coming year. Representatives from the California Community Action Partnership Association and several CSBG-funded agencies described how the program supports local anti-poverty work and leverages other funding. CalCAPA emphasized local flexibility, workforce development, partnerships, and data systems such as ROMA, while also warning that agencies are preparing for possible reductions by tightening budgets, planning staffing contingencies, and seeking private foundation support. Agency witnesses from Contra Costa County, Northern California Indian Development Council, Proteus, and Sacred Heart Community Service described services including housing assistance, food distribution, utility help, employment training, youth programs, and culturally specific services for Native communities and migrant farmworkers. They repeatedly said CSBG is essential because it funds staffing and infrastructure that allow them to braid other grants and serve people who do not qualify for standard safety-net programs. Members also asked about the impact of federal staffing changes and the Los Angeles fires. Wimbley said federal layoffs had affected some CSD programs but not CSBG administration, and that the department coordinated disaster response with state agencies and used CSBG-funded supply distribution, food, water, clothing, and documentation support during the fires. Witnesses said they were preparing for possible future cuts by diversifying funding, reducing expenses, and considering service changes, while county officials warned that state and federal reductions could not be backfilled locally. During public comment, one speaker urged stronger oversight of community action agencies and raised concerns about transparency and compliance with state law. The chair then thanked the witnesses, emphasized the importance of CSBG for low-income seniors, youth, and people with disabilities, and adjourned the hearing without any votes or formal action taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Community voice matters.
• Community voice matters.
• to the community today.
• and in their communities.
• community needs.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Business held its final hearing of the session on H. 5187 and S. 3022, the Enough Act, with Chair Andy Vargas and Senator Adam Gomez opening by thanking committee members and stakeholders for their work during the session. The bills were described as a grant-based, place-based anti-poverty initiative intended to support cradle-to-career services by funding local nonprofits, schools, community organizations, and backbone entities that can coordinate housing, education, health, workforce, and family supports in high-poverty neighborhoods. Testimony was overwhelmingly in support of the bills. Speakers including Strategies for Children, Chelsea Public Schools, Bunker Hill Community College, Senator Sal DiDomenico, Rep. Kate Lipper-Garabedian, Rep. Antonio Cabral, the Harlem Children’s Zone’s Kwame Owusu Kesse and Jeffrey Canada, former Education Secretary Paul Reville, AFT Massachusetts, United Way, the Boston Foundation, Give Black Alliance, Eastern Bank Foundation, and others argued that poverty is a systems issue that schools alone cannot solve. They emphasized the need for local control, community voice, coordinated services, and long-term public-private investment, often citing examples from Chelsea, New Bedford, Springfield, Lowell, Boston, and other communities, as well as the Harlem Children’s Zone and Maryland’s similar model. Committee members asked several questions about how the bill would function in practice, including what organizations would do on day one, how it would interact with existing efforts like community schools, McKinney-Vento, and the Student Opportunity Act, and how it would be sustained over time. Witnesses said the act would help create or strengthen backbone organizations, reduce duplication, align existing resources, and leverage philanthropy and future revenue sources for long-term sustainability. No vote was taken during the hearing, but multiple speakers urged the committee to report the bill favorably and quickly.

Transcript Highlights:

• Ed<00:03:16.920> kind communities is that's Community Ed kind communities is that's Community
• Community Education Aid, in addition to that communication, Community Education Revenue, and the opportunity
• in addition to um that communication in addition to um that communication Community<00:08:49.279
• The needs of our districts and our community communities.
• The community space acts as that, and a lot of communities are running the community centers.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , and communities of color.
• We have time to prepare, and if we do this together, community by community, neighbor by neighbor, we
• , indigenous community.
• Yeah, you really, you know, the black community, indigenous community, people of color.
• communities.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on the Census held an early planning hearing on how Massachusetts can maximize participation in the 2030 census, with Chair Will Brownsberger and Vice Chair Rebecca Rausch emphasizing the need to start well in advance. The first panel, made up of leaders from the Massachusetts Voter Table, MassVOTE, MIRA, and MESA, stressed that grassroots community organizations are trusted messengers and should be funded early to do multilingual outreach, training, and direct assistance in hard-to-count communities. They described lessons from 2020, including the shift to internet response, reduced federal census infrastructure, the importance of coordinated statewide networks, and the need to begin messaging several years before Census Day because building trust and staffing outreach takes time. Panelists repeatedly warned that immigrant communities are facing heightened fear because of federal immigration enforcement and the possibility of a citizenship question or other federal changes, making census participation more difficult. They said 2020 funding arrived too late to fully staff and train outreach teams before the pandemic, and argued that future resources should be deployed earlier and more flexibly. In response to committee questions, they estimated Massachusetts should invest roughly $8 million to $10 million or more in state census outreach, with one proposed model of about $3 million to $5 million at the start, additional funding in the middle years, and a larger final push closer to 2030. They also suggested that funding should support communications infrastructure, translation, social media and ethnic media outreach, and possibly a permanent complete count structure or trust fund to preserve institutional knowledge. A second panel from Common Cause Massachusetts and the ACLU of Massachusetts echoed the call for stronger, earlier investment and stronger privacy protections. They urged the legislature to expand existing census line items, consider a trust fund or other dedicated funding stream, and coordinate census outreach with other state programs that already work through trusted community messengers. The ACLU testimony focused on racial inequities in census counts and warned that federal efforts to exclude non-citizens or add a citizenship question would deepen distrust and undercount immigrant communities. Committee members asked about the 2020 overcount/undercount results, funding levels, timing of grant distribution, and whether census outreach should be routed through the Secretary of the Commonwealth or other state mechanisms; no votes were taken, and the hearing moved on to a later panel on immigrant-community outreach.

Transcript Highlights:

• successful community colleges, I would say, in California: the Foothill-De Anza Community College District
• successful community colleges, I would say, in California: the Foothill-De Anza Community College District
• , and from communities that are historically underrepresented in higher education, the community college
• Same with the community colleges.
• I am now a former community I am now a former community college student attending CSU Sacramento.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• from, especially communities of color.
• , including low- and moderate-income communities and communities of color, in which the covered financial
• Including low- and moderate-income communities and communities of color in which the covered financial
• lenders in our communities.
• economically deprived communities.

Summary: The Assembly Banking and Finance Committee met to hear several bills, beginning with a consent calendar that included AB 665 and AB 866, both adopted on a do pass basis and referred to Appropriations. The committee then took up AB 801, which would create a California Community Reinvestment Act to require covered financial institutions, including state-chartered banks, credit unions, residential mortgage lenders, and money transmitters, to meet the financial needs of low- and moderate-income communities and communities of color. The author and supporters argued the bill would close gaps left by the federal CRA, address redlining and discriminatory lending, and expand investment in housing, small business, and community development. Support came from community groups, CDFIs, labor, and housing advocates, while opposition from mortgage bankers and credit unions argued the bill would impose costly new reporting and regulatory burdens, especially on institutions they said already serve underserved borrowers well. Committee members discussed the scope of the bill, the experience of other states with state CRA laws, and possible carve-outs or tiered treatment for smaller credit unions. AB 801 was passed as amended and referred to Appropriations, with the roll left open and later completed; one member voted no and others were not voting or voted aye as the roll was finalized. The committee also heard AB 743, which would require licensing and surety bonds for commercial lawsuit financing and bring those transactions under DFPI oversight. The author said the bill was aimed at a largely unregulated, multi-billion-dollar industry and was intended to increase transparency and address concerns about foreign interests, fraud, and abusive litigation funding practices, while not affecting consumer legal funding. Supporters, including Unified Patents, the Civil Justice Association of California, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Trucking Association, and the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, said the bill was an important first step toward disclosure and regulation. There was no opposition testimony. AB 743 passed unanimously as amended and was referred to Appropriations, with the roll held open briefly for absent members before the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Information and receive feedback from community members.
• the surrounding communities that are affected.
• I'll speak to maybe both tribal and community.
• community, whether or not an immigrant community is going to have much greater exposures or a tribal
• I'll speak to maybe both tribal and community.

Summary: The I-900 Subcommittee held a public hearing on the State Auditor’s performance audit, Community Engagement During Contaminated Site Cleanups. Auditors said Ecology directly conducts or supervises cleanup at only about 8% of active contaminated sites, while most sites are handled by third parties or have no cleanup plan yet. The audit found that Ecology generally met legal requirements at the sites it oversees, but community engagement varied, was not consistently tailored to local needs, and lacked a systematic “lessons learned” process. Auditors also found inconsistent coordination between Ecology and the Department of Health, and limited guidance for staff on when to collaborate. Tribal feedback was mixed: some tribes said engagement met their needs, while others wanted earlier and more tailored outreach. Committee members pressed the auditors on why many third-party-managed sites appeared to have little or no public involvement, and whether Ecology has broader authority to require public engagement and oversight. The auditors responded that their review focused on community engagement requirements, not the full cleanup permitting process, and said the gap they identified was the lack of required oversight for third-party engagement. Members also asked about tribal engagement, exposure scenarios, and the meaning of “active” and “planless” sites. Ecology officials said they agreed with many of the findings, were already taking steps to improve community research, lessons-learned reviews, tribal guidance, and coordination with Health, and had recently launched a public email notification system for site status changes. They also said some recommendations would require additional funding or staff resources. Public testimony supported stronger community engagement and more resources for Ecology. Washington Conservation Action said contaminated sites disproportionately affect communities of color and low-income communities, praised the audit for highlighting the need for better site-specific engagement, and urged full funding for MTCA-related work. The hearing ended with the chair inviting written comments and adjourning the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• successful community colleges, I would say, in California: the Foothill-De Anza Community College District
• , and from communities that are historically underrepresented in higher education, the community college
• and from communities who are historically underrepresented in higher education, the community college
• Same with the community colleges.
• Same with the community colleges.

Summary: The committee held an oversight hearing on a state audit examining California’s community college transfer process and whether streamlining it could improve access to bachelor’s degrees. Opening remarks from legislators emphasized that California’s transfer system is central to equity and workforce development, but that only about one in five transfer-intending community college students complete a transfer within four years. Members highlighted disparities by race, region, campus, and major, and pointed to confusion created by differing requirements across the UC, CSU, and community college systems, including limits and inconsistencies in the Associate Degree for Transfer (ADT), TAG, and major-specific prerequisites. State Auditor’s staff said the audit found that while UC and CSU systemwide enroll more transfer students than the Master Plan target, individual campuses and high-demand STEM programs often do not. The audit identified barriers including unclear and varying course requirements, limited counseling and education plans, insufficient counselor staffing at some campuses, and weak equity plans. It also found that many students never even apply because they do not accumulate enough units or cannot navigate the process. The auditor described examples where transfer students with strong preparation were denied at selective campuses and noted that articulation alignment across systems remains limited. Representatives from UC, CSU, and the Community Colleges responded that transfer remains a top priority and described ongoing reforms. UC cited a new public dashboard, data-sharing agreements, new transfer pathways, and an ADT pilot at UCLA, while saying campus-level capacity and program differences limit how much can be standardized from the system office. CSU said it admits more than 90% of eligible transfer applicants, is expanding transfer planning tools and direct outreach, and is implementing SB 640’s Transfer Success Pathway Program. Community Colleges said transfer reform must focus on clearer credit mobility, more consistent articulation, and broader ADT adoption. Members pressed the systems on inconsistent major requirements, the need for better coordination, and whether campuses are fully prioritizing transfer students; no votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• and built as a community college.
• start elevating LGBT above other community members?
• community college portfolio, and I know it's small because I was vice chancellor of the community colleges
• community college portfolio, and I know it's small because I was vice chancellor of the community colleges
• for California Community Colleges, in support.

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee heard several Senate measures focused on community college procurement, higher education access, and student support. SB 1154 by Senator Reyes would allow community college districts to use best-value procurement for public works projects over $1 million. Supporters, including San Bernardino Valley College, the San Bernardino Community College District, labor groups, and several districts, said it would improve delivery of complex facilities and align community colleges with other education systems. Opponents, including the Associated General Contractors, argued the bill’s skilled-and-trained workforce requirements and labor-compliance scoring would narrow the bidder pool and raise costs. The committee passed the bill to the Assembly Floor on a due-pass vote, with some members voting no or not recorded. SB 1255, also by Senator Reyes, would create a California Hispanic-serving institution designation. Supporters from HACU, the CSU Chancellor’s Office, UC, community colleges, and other education organizations said the designation would recognize campuses that serve large numbers of Latino and low-income students and strengthen accountability and student success. The committee approved the bill as amended and re-referred it to Appropriations, with one no vote. SB 1328, presented on behalf of Senator Cervantes, would require LGBTQ+ points of contact at satellite or branch campuses of CSU and community colleges, either through designated staff or regular office hours. Testimony emphasized gaps in access at remote centers and the need for confidential support; one member raised concerns about staffing, costs, and whether existing systems could meet the need remotely. The bill was passed as amended and sent to Appropriations. The committee also considered SB 960 by Senator Cabaldon, which would expand the circumstances under which community colleges could offer bachelor’s degrees in response to unmet workforce needs, especially where CSU programs are impacted or not realistically accessible locally. Supporters said the bill would help meet workforce demand and expand access for place-bound and adult learners. CSU and faculty representatives opposed unless amended, urging stronger partnership requirements, clearer workforce-need standards, and safeguards around duplication and Prop 98 funding. Members discussed impaction, regional access, and the role of partnerships; the bill was passed as amended and re-referred to Appropriations. Finally, SB 632 by Senator Otagan would extend the California College Promise fee waiver to part-time community college students enrolled in nine units. Supporters said many students cannot attend full time because of work, caregiving, and living costs, and the bill would better reflect student realities; the transcript ends during testimony on this measure, before any vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• We were one of the first communities to vote in the CPA, Community Preservation Act.
• Not community.
• My communities do not.
• communities.
• We Communities.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government held a long public hearing focused mainly on two sets of issues: proposals to amend or repeal the MBTA Communities Act, and bills to allow local rent stabilization. Committee chairs opened by explaining the hearing would be tightly managed because of the very large number of speakers, with testimony limited to two minutes per person and written testimony still accepted by email. Members and witnesses were called in a mix of in-person and virtual order throughout the hearing. On the MBTA Communities Act, several legislators and local officials argued the law is too rigid and should be revised to account for local conditions. Speakers from small, rural, or infrastructure-limited communities such as Hanson, Halifax, Marshfield, Winthrop, Dracut, Carver, Rehoboth, and others said the law’s one-size-fits-all approach does not fit towns with limited water, sewer, transit access, or buildable land. Some filed bills would repeal the law, exempt certain communities, or create appeals processes based on infrastructure, environmental, or historical constraints. Supporters of the law’s changes emphasized local control and the need to avoid forcing development where communities believe it is impractical or inconsistent with town character. A large portion of the hearing was devoted to rent stabilization legislation, especially S. 1447 and related House bills. Supporters included legislators, city councilors, tenant advocates, labor leaders, housing nonprofits, public health organizations, and residents who described sharp rent increases, displacement, homelessness risk, and the strain on working families, seniors, students, and people with disabilities. They argued local-option rent stabilization would let municipalities cap excessive increases and prevent no-fault evictions while preserving flexibility for local conditions. Opponents, including small landlords and property owners, said rent control would discourage investment, worsen housing quality, burden responsible owners, and drive small landlords out of the market. Some witnesses also supported a Cape Cod/Island transfer fee bill and a suburban infrastructure fund, arguing those would provide local revenue for housing or roads. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• and built as a community college.
• start elevating LGBT above other community members?
• community... ...original community college bachelor's degree program was created as a small part of
• the community college portfolio, and I know it's small because I was vice chancellor of the community
• for California Community Colleges, in support.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• When our communities are under attack, the community school model fights back.
• quo to a third community, a third community which 23% of our students report they are part of.
• Community schools provide a network of community-based support and services Community schools provide
• As a community school coordinator, I expanded community partnerships from 3 to 16.
• Community schools can help with these kinds of services and personalize our needs to the community.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education heard testimony on several bills centered on school accountability, receivership, graduation requirements, charter school access, community schools, school libraries, and student voting rights. Much of the discussion focused on the Thrive Act, S. 374, which would end state receivership and change the state’s accountability approach. Supporters, including educators, parents, advocacy groups, and students, argued that receivership has not improved outcomes in districts such as Lawrence, Holyoke, Southbridge, Boston, and the Dever, and that local communities should have more control, with greater emphasis on community schools, wraparound services, and broader measures of school quality. They also supported related bills on community schools and school library standards, and several witnesses backed a bill to expand student representative voting rights on school committees. Opponents of S. 374, especially charter school leaders, parents, students, and some education advocates, focused on Section 4 of the bill, which would change the charter school net school spending cap in the lowest-performing districts. They argued that the provision would reduce access to charter seats in communities where families are seeking more options, and that schools such as Roxbury Prep, Excel Academy, Brook, Veritas Prep, and Libertas Academy have produced strong results for students, including students of color, low-income students, and students with special needs. Several witnesses said the section would force schools to shrink or close and would remove opportunities for families in districts with long waitlists. Committee members questioned witnesses on both the effectiveness of receivership and the charter school cap language. Chair Lewis and Chair Gordon emphasized the need for a better accountability system and noted concerns about whether current measures, including MCAS-based designations, accurately reflect school quality. Some witnesses said they had discussed the possibility of removing Section 4 from the Thrive Act and suggested it might be addressed in separate charter reform legislation. No votes were taken during the hearing; testimony was received and the committee later closed testimony on S. 374 and several related bills before moving on to the student voting rights bill, S. 367.

Transcript Highlights:

• So when vulnerable communities are targeted, the Jewish community feels it too.
• , in the Black community, in the Indigenous community, the Latino community, the LGBT, the AAPI communities
• , and disabled communities.
• , in the Black community, in the Indigenous community, the Latino community, the LGBT, the AAPI communities
• , and disabled communities.

Summary: The Select Committee on Hate, Racism, and Xenophobia met to examine the scope of hate activity in California and hear from state agencies, commissions, and community organizations. The chair opened by framing hate as a persistent crisis affecting many protected groups, and Assembly Member Gonzalez briefly joined the committee. The first panel included the California Department of Justice and the California Commission on the State of Hate, both of which presented recent data and policy recommendations. The Department of Justice reported that in 2024 California saw 2,023 reported hate crime events, 2,568 hate crime offenses, and 2,491 victims, with anti-Black bias remaining the most common category, followed by anti-Jewish and anti-Latino bias. DOJ also said referrals for prosecution increased, and it described its hate-crimes guidance, rapid response protocol, and multilingual resources. The Commission on the State of Hate said hate is undercounted in law enforcement data and cited a survey suggesting about 2.6 million Californians experienced at least one hate act in a year, including more than half a million potentially criminal incidents. It recommended permanent data infrastructure, mandatory law enforcement training, and continued funding for community-based prevention and victim support. The committee then heard testimony from representatives of the NAACP, LULAC, Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California, CHIRLA, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, CARE, Equality California, and the Racial Equity Commission. Witnesses described systemic racism, anti-immigrant enforcement, antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Asian bias, and anti-LGBTQ+ hate, often linking these harms to political rhetoric, social media, and federal actions. They urged the Legislature to fund programs such as California vs. Hate, Stop the Hate, nonprofit security grants, language access, school and mental health supports, and legal assistance, while also protecting civil rights, due process, and free speech. No formal votes or committee actions were taken during the hearing, but members indicated they would request additional recommendations and continue the discussion in future hearings.

Transcript Highlights:

• We need them to be free to keep our community safe and to maintain good communication and working relationships
• We need them to be free to keep our community safe and to maintain good communities, We need them to
• be free to keep our community safe and to maintain good communication and working relationships with
• The Safe Communities Act is a critical first step to protecting our communities, countering xenophobia
• and working-class communities.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on the Safe Communities Act, House 2580 and Senate 1681, along with related proposals to limit local and state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, prohibit 287(g) agreements, and expand legal defense for immigrants. Most testimony came from advocates, attorneys, labor leaders, health care professionals, educators, and community members who argued that fear of ICE discourages immigrants from reporting crimes, seeking medical care, attending school, or cooperating with courts, and that a clear statewide policy would improve public safety, due process, and trust in institutions. Several speakers described personal or client experiences involving domestic violence, trafficking, workplace abuse, or children affected by deportation, and many emphasized economic harms to workers, families, and small businesses. Health care witnesses said immigration enforcement is causing patients to miss appointments, avoid emergency rooms, and delay preventive care, with resulting public health consequences. Labor and education representatives said immigrant workers and students are increasingly fearful, and that the state should not allow local police to act as ICE agents or enter 287(g) agreements. ACLU and coalition witnesses cited examples they said showed existing or recent collaboration between local agencies and ICE, including courthouse alerts, vehicle stops, and use of municipal spaces, while also arguing that the bill would still allow cooperation on criminal matters and public safety emergencies. One witness opposed the bill, arguing that serious criminal offenders should be deported and defending ICE’s role. Committee members asked several questions about whether the harms described were widespread or anecdotal, and about the distinction between assisting ICE in civil immigration arrests versus responding to violent or public safety emergencies. Witnesses said the bill was aimed at civil immigration enforcement, not criminal investigations or emergency situations. At the end of the hearing, a committee member requested a study on immigration enforcement’s effect on emergency room wait times, and the committee then adjourned without taking a vote on the legislation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Not only do immigrant communities suffer, but all communities suffer.
• our communities.
• or safer communities.
• Inflicted on our community.
• My community is the Latina and Latinx community.

Bills: HB1320, HB2012, HB2293, HB2655, HB3174, HB4108, HB4661, HB4799, HB5534, HB5580

Keywords: transportation, infrastructure, funding, state budget, public safety, child welfare, county boards, membership, local governance, public welfare, government service, social services, Texas Family Code, regulation, vendors, solicitors, roadside sales, county authority, Sweeny Hospital District, board of directors

Transcript Highlights:

• But it's no magic; it's community. Community can do a lot of great work.
• There was music and there was food, but the community was a community of healing.
• Stated differently, to build community resilience, invest in the youth of your community.
• We ask that we inform related parties as a community in the community collaborative.
• I'm really very familiar with community schools, particularly the community schools that are.

Transcript Highlights:

• We continue to largely be an immigrant-focused community and supported community.
• . communities. communities.
• the communities that need it. the communities that need it.
• communities are facing? communities are facing?
• people from those communities. people from those communities.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: Representative Cedric Frazier opened the meeting by describing the ongoing harms from Operation Metro Surge, saying the state was still dealing with family separation, school disruption, workforce damage, and economic instability. He framed the issue as a statewide crisis and called on Republican colleagues to acknowledge the harm and work with DFL members on accountability and relief. He said the current budget work was urgent but could not fully backfill the damage, and later noted that the issue had been a top priority since the surge began. Testimony from school and business leaders focused on concrete impacts. Fridley Public Schools Superintendent Brenda Lewis said her district, which serves a large Black, Hispanic, and East and West African student population, was targeted during the surge and saw major enrollment losses, including students moving out of state or country or being held in Texas facilities. She said the district lost over $1 million in revenue and that the loss could equal about 40 teachers or an entire elementary school. Columbia Heights School Board Chair Mary Granlund said her district, with a limited tax base, was also heavily affected and warned that business closures and unfunded mandates would shift costs to homeowners and force cuts to classes, teachers, and programs. Lee Ann Rasiejka of Women Venture and the CDFI coalition said small businesses across Minnesota were facing compounded disruption from federal law enforcement activity, tariffs, rising costs, and fear, with more than $213 million in lost revenue reported across Twin Cities corridors and many businesses cutting hours, delaying hiring, or pausing growth. In response to questions, Frazier and other speakers said the proposed aid would be statewide rather than focused only on the Twin Cities, and that the bill currently had no set dollar amount but they hoped for around $100 million. They said CDFIs and local community groups would help distribute resources. Frazier said some Republican members had acknowledged harm in their own communities and suggested compromise was possible, though he criticized leadership for dismissing some testimony as hearsay. He also said ongoing law enforcement investigations into alleged crimes by federal agents would not be necessary to establish the harm, pointing instead to direct testimony from affected residents and school officials. No votes were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• communities and, particularly around IT, groups of communities—to help support getting their systems
• It might be a larger community with a smaller community, or it might be a cohort of smaller communities
• Why are we seeing in some communities hundreds of these and in other communities like 12?
• or large communities or coastal or rural communities.
• It really... ...small communities or large communities or coastal or rural communities.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on Governor Healey and Lt. Gov. Driscoll’s Municipal Empowerment Act, with administration officials and municipal leaders broadly supporting the bill as a package of tools to help cities and towns manage rising costs, staffing shortages, and service demands. The administration highlighted procurement reforms, including raising Chapter 30B advertising thresholds, clarifying cooperative purchasing, and removing the Commbuys notice requirement; permanent authority to amortize emergency-related deficits over three years; expanded authority and enforcement for removing double poles; continued flexibility for hybrid and remote public meetings; regionalization options such as regional boards of assessors and intermunicipal agreements; cybersecurity reporting to EOTSS; and several local revenue options and other municipal finance changes. They said the bill was shaped by listening sessions with municipal officials and was intended to increase flexibility, efficiency, and stability without imposing broad mandates. Committee members asked about regionalization, cybersecurity costs, Commbuys, hybrid meetings, and double poles. Administration witnesses said cybersecurity reporting would help the state target resources and that existing Community Compact and capital grant programs, including IT and municipal fiber funding, could support local needs; they said EOTSS would absorb reporting within existing resources. On procurement, they said the Commbuys notice change would be optional and that other public notice methods would remain available. On hybrid meetings, they emphasized flexibility for different types of boards and the burdens a one-size-fits-all mandate could create for small towns and volunteer boards. On double poles, they said the bill’s main change from last session was to give utilities more time and improve the removal process while keeping enforcement mechanisms aimed at speeding removal rather than raising revenue. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, MAPC, the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, and multiple mayors and town managers testified in support. They described the bill as a practical modernization measure that would help local governments operate more efficiently and respond to fiscal pressure. Witnesses from Northampton, Lynn, Gardner, Cambridge, Franklin, North Andover, Manchester-by-the-Sea, and Ashland praised the hybrid meeting provisions, procurement changes, regional service-sharing, and emergency deficit amortization. Several also urged adoption of local revenue tools, including meals and lodging tax options and other local fees, as ways to preserve services and staffing. No votes were taken during the hearing.