Transcript Highlights:

• Again, my my view that we don't all have ADR do heart.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think that an informal conference, or there's also other types of ADR such as mediation.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard and acted on several gubernatorial nominations to the Hawaii Workforce Development Council and one nomination to the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board. For GM 779, Mark Fong Su Wat said he would bring his experience as an electrician and labor community member to workforce development, and he committed to serving if confirmed. Testimony was unanimously supportive, with 10 in support and none opposed, and the committee voted to recommend advise and consent; the recommendation was adopted. For GM 792, Sheryl Cross sought a second term on the Workforce Development Council and described her work on employer engagement, military veteran affairs, and military spouse employment. In response to questions, she emphasized the need to better connect military spouses, underrepresented workers, and students pursuing trades or non-college pathways to jobs, including through school academies and online hiring initiatives. The item was held for later decision-making. For GM 793, Ashley Lohua, also nominated to the Workforce Development Council, said her focus would be helping people stay in Hawaii by improving job retention, listening to community concerns, and building pathways between sectors. Support testimony highlighted her work with marginalized communities and her empathy and leadership. She told the committee she would use her nonprofit and HR experience to help address vacancies and workforce barriers; the item was also held for later decision-making. For GM 774, Douglas Thomas Moore, nominated to the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board, said his first priority would be reducing the backlog. He proposed using informal conferences and mediation to speed workers’ compensation appeals and suggested recruiting more practitioners, especially younger ones, into the field. The committee noted 11 supportive testimonies and no opposition; no vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• assumption is we're talking about the reports, um, where you have to send the student data, the ADM and the ADR
• Um, I would like to ask a question though regarding superintendent. data um the ADM and the ADR data
• has to data um the ADM and the ADR data has to be<01:17:20.880> sent<01:17:21.679> from

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The task force had discussed ADR procedures in Minnesota and other jurisdictions and where improvements

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, so with respect to the ADRS, are you looking at values and how values are assessed within Just

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There has been a lot of discussion by the task force about ADR procedures in Minnesota and other jurisdictions

Summary: The Child Custody Review Task Force met to approve prior minutes and then worked through draft legislation related to a possible family court study committee. The group discussed the proposed 15-member committee’s makeup in detail, including whether to add parent representation, judges, family law section members, child support, clerks of court, domestic violence advocates, and other stakeholders. The task force ultimately agreed to keep the committee at 15 members, reduce the legislative membership from eight to six, add two judges from different districts, add two family law section members with rural and urban representation, include one parent subject to a custody order, and replace the mental health professional with a clerk of court representative appointed through the trial court administrator’s office. The draft was also revised to keep domestic violence advocacy representation and to clarify that the study could consider juvenile court issues as part of the family court umbrella. The committee voted to approve the revised draft and recommend it to Legislative Management, with one recorded “no” vote from Judge Hovey after the meeting resumed. The task force then turned to a second draft dealing with requiring participation in a family transition program, which was renamed in discussion to a parenting education course. Members debated whether the bill should simply refer to an existing program like Parents Forever or instead specify broader education about the court process, parental rights, co-parenting, and related issues. Some members supported the requirement as a way to reduce conflict and improve understanding of the system, while others raised concerns about vague language, cost to parents, lack of exemptions, and whether the bill was too open-ended or potentially duplicative of other legislation. The discussion became lengthy and unresolved, with the drafter noting that more specific direction would be needed to revise the bill. The transcript cuts off before a final vote or action on this second draft is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• For over a little over a decade, I've been a volunteer deputy registrar (ADR) in multiple East Texas.

Bills: HB569, HB766, HB1638, HB2316, HB2773, HB2785, HB3113, HB3709, HB3775, HB4275

Keywords: early voting, ballot correction, voting rights, election integrity, mail-in voting, voter notification, HB 766, precinct chair, precinct chair candidate, ballot application, Texas Election Code, Section 172.021, election administration, candidate filing, party precinct chair, county party, political party office, email address, telephone number, confidential candidate information

Transcript Highlights:

• Jeff Crabtree from the Judiciary Center for ADR. We're in support.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce met on March 12, 2025, and heard testimony on several bills, with most measures drawing support from state boards, agencies, and industry groups. SB 102 (restaurants) had one supportive testifier and no questions. SB 1367 SD1 (installment loans) drew support from DCCA and other boards, but the chair raised concerns about a proposed $5 debit-card convenience fee, saying it seemed high and suggesting it might be amended downward; DCCA said it would check with industry on the likely impact. SB 1373 SD2 (administrative licensure action against sex offenders) received broad support from DCCA and multiple professional licensing boards, including psychology, physical therapy, naturopathic medicine, chiropractic, dentistry, massage therapy, nursing, optometry, barbering and cosmetology, the Hawaii Medical Board, and HPD. The committee then heard SB 1142 SD1 (insurance proceeds), which was supported by DCCA, the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, AARP, Hawaiʻi Realtors, and the Hawaiʻi Insurers Council, while State Farm offered comments and the Hawaii Bankers Association opposed. Testimony focused on insurance access after the Lahaina wildfires and the need to address underinsured homeowners. The committee also discussed SB 144 SD2 (stabilization of property insurance), with support from the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, AARP, Hawaiʻi Realtors, and the Hawaiʻi Insurers Council, and comments from the Attorney General and DCCA Insurance Division about revising the financing structure and correcting bill language. Opponents and reservationed supporters argued the bill may not help if applicants can still obtain coverage at very high prices, while supporters said it would expand market capacity and provide a safety net as climate-related losses continue. Finally, SB 253 SD2 (condominium reserves) received support from Hawaiʻi Realtors, CI, and several individual testifiers. Supporters said it would enforce existing disclosure requirements under Act 199 and improve reserve funding transparency, while one individual argued stronger enforcement and an ombudsman-style office would be more effective. The chair reminded testifiers to stay on the bill at hand. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the portion of the meeting reflected in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• But a lot of our cases do go to ADR, and that's why they don't extend beyond a year as much as that you
• cases<03:59:48.800> do<03:59:49.000> go<03:59:49.159> to<03:59:49.520> ADR
• <03:59:50.520> and a lot of our cases do go to ADR and a lot of our cases do go to ADR and

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 2 provisions affecting the New Hampshire Retirement System, focusing on Group 2/Tier B retirement changes in pages 25 through 39 of the bill. NHRS Executive Director Jan Goodwin and deputy chief counsel Mark Kavanaugh explained that the 2025 bill is largely similar to prior versions and to HB 727, with the main difference being that the 2025 version does not include the earlier increase in the maximum benefit. They also said the fiscal note for HB 2 is based on earlier actuarial work and that an updated valuation was expected later in the week. A major topic was whether the bill accidentally removed an anti-spiking or special-duty compensation limit. NHRS said the omission appears to be a scrivener’s error caused by moving language between Group 1 and Group 2 definitions, and they planned to flag it in the fiscal note. Members also reviewed the bill’s intent to restore Tier B members to pre-2011 benefit rules, including changes to earnable compensation, average final compensation, and the comp-over-base rule. Some members questioned whether restoring those older rules was appropriate, arguing the 2011 changes were meant to curb pension spiking and that undoing them could be problematic. The committee also discussed the bill’s cost and funding assumptions. NHRS said the 2025 bill would reduce unfunded actuarial liability by about $98.2 million and would have a more favorable effect than the 2023 version, while employer contribution impacts would remain relatively small. Members noted the bill assumes annual appropriations of $27.5 million for 10 years, but House Bill 1 currently provides only $5 million in the first year, and NHRS had not yet analyzed the effect of that shortfall. No votes were taken in the portion provided; the discussion was informational and focused on clarifying the bill’s language, intent, and fiscal impact.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I appreciate what you're saying. 5% of cases settled, especially since the advent of ADR in media

Bills: HB4806

Keywords: civil action, damages, health care services, noneconomic damages, negligence, legal standards, 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• appreciate what you're saying, but let me, 95% of cases settled, OK, especially since the advent of ADR

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, the other thing by way of further unmediation, at least ADR in the broadest sense, alternative dispute

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee on Family Court reviewed several previously distributed reports, including a comparison of family court structures in other states and a report on improving New Hampshire family court pre-trial and mediation practices. The main new topic was a report on the intersection of domestic violence and family courts in New Hampshire, with members discussing how domestic violence cases in superior or district court can overlap with custody matters in family court and how courts may not be aware of related proceedings in other venues. Members discussed RSA 490-D:2 and related statutes, noting that family courts have original jurisdiction over certain abuse, neglect, and domestic violence matters, with concurrent jurisdiction in some protective-order cases. The discussion focused on practical problems such as confidentiality in domestic violence cases, limited access to case information by nonparties, and the need for courts to better communicate about companion cases. Suggestions included a shared or unified database, expanded lethality assessments for law enforcement, and a requirement that criminal courts report domestic violence convictions or protective-order violations to family court so judges are aware of the full case context. The subcommittee also discussed ways to help self-represented litigants, including better education at first appearance, clearer guidance about raising protective orders or criminal charges at hearings, daily docket review by clerks, and a possible “lawyer for the day” program modeled on Massachusetts. One member raised the idea of a family safety docket, while another noted that New Hampshire already has a complex case docket for high-conflict matters and that cases generally stay with one judge when possible. No votes were taken, and the chair said the subcommittee would continue reviewing materials and could return to work next year, with possible bill amendments to follow.

Transcript Highlights:

• talk about all the things they do, but I am going to just specifically reference the things that the ADR
• /c><01:43:48.320> things<01:43:48.599> that<01:43:48.800> the<01:43:49.000> ADR
• <01:43:49.719> office<01:43:50.040> does the uh things that the ADR office does the
• uh things that the ADR office does for<01:43:50.599> the<01:43:50.800> Family<01:43:51.639

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting began with committee process reminders from the chair, including rules for questioning witnesses, time limits for testimony, and how motions and committee reports are handled. The chair also discussed the committee’s history, emphasized a cooperative approach with agencies and the Judiciary, and noted that a special committee on the Family Division of Circuit Court had previously done useful work; he said a new subcommittee could be appointed later to continue looking at judicial-system issues. He also mentioned that the Speaker’s office was expected to name members to the DHHS oversight committee by Friday at 1. The substantive presentation was from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Bureau of Child Support Services. Attorney John Williams introduced the bureau team, and Bureau Chief Lisa Dekowski described the program’s mission: encouraging responsible parenting, family self-sufficiency, and child well-being by locating parents, establishing paternity, setting or modifying support orders, and enforcing court-ordered child and medical support. She said the bureau operates statewide under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, works with courts, employers, and other partners, and serves both in-state and out-of-state cases, with some international and tribal coordination. She also cited program scale, saying the bureau dispersed about $76 million to families in New Hampshire in fiscal year 2023 and that most collections go directly to families. Members asked about enforcement tools, especially passport denial. In response to a question about a case involving a very small shortfall, the bureau said the federal passport-denial threshold is $2,500 in arrears, not a few cents, and that denial remains in place until the balance is resolved or an arrangement is made with the agency, with hardship factors potentially considered. The bureau also explained that either parent can apply for services when a child support order exists and that the bureau can help initiate income withholding orders. No votes or formal actions were taken during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Perhaps AOC would have some more insight in terms of ADR around the country. Okay. All right.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because there is no reason why we would complicate ADR as a source of dispute resolution and put additional

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and several guest introductions, including students from Brooklyn and St. John’s University, followed by adoption of the resolution calendar with exceptions for two items. The chamber then took up a series of previously adopted resolutions recognizing Black Maternal Health Week, Workplace Violence Prevention Month, the one-year anniversary of the Jet Set nightclub tragedy in the Dominican Republic, New York Constitution Day, and the Month of the Military Child. Senators speaking on the maternal health resolution emphasized racial disparities in maternal mortality and the need for culturally competent care; the workplace violence resolution highlighted hospital safety programs; the Jet Set resolution was adopted in memory of the victims; and the Constitution Day speech reviewed New York’s delayed but eventual support for independence in 1776. The military child resolution stressed the sacrifices of military families and support for children of service members. All of these resolutions were adopted, and the resolutions were opened to co-sponsorship. The Senate then moved through the third reading calendar, passing several bills and laying others aside. Measures passed included bills on public health, environmental conservation, executive law, public authorities, and consumer protection. One notable debate involved a bill to require transparency from private arbitration organizations handling consumer cases; supporters argued it would provide basic public data and guard against conflicts of interest, while opponents said it would burden a useful dispute-resolution process and intrude on privacy. The bill passed after debate. Another debated bill would phase out number 4 heating oil statewide; supporters said cleaner alternatives exist and the fuel is harmful to public health, while opponents raised cost and transition concerns, especially for colder regions. That bill also passed. The chamber also considered a bill to create a rebate program for battery-powered landscaping equipment, funded through utility-related mechanisms administered by NYSERDA. Supporters said it would reduce air and noise pollution and help companies transition, while opponents argued ratepayers should not subsidize landscaping equipment. The bill passed after being restored to the non-controversial calendar. Finally, the Senate began discussion of a housing-related bill aimed at preserving manufactured home parks by enabling nonprofits or municipalities to acquire development rights and keep the land dedicated to that use, with the sponsor explaining that the goal is to protect affordable housing and help residents remain in their homes.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• know you heard last week or week before from our circuit court administrator, Heather Culp, on the ADR

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Children and Family Law Committee met on April 15, 2025, and opened a hearing on Senate Bill 269, which would remove references to “bride and groom” and replace them with “applicants” in the Vital Records Act. The bill was described by the sponsor’s designee as a housekeeping update requested by the Secretary of State to modernize and standardize the language in light of same-sex marriage and to make the statute gender-neutral. Members asked whether the change would affect the substance of marriage law, marriage ceremonies, age and residence requirements, or open the door to polygamy; the response was that it would not change the law, would still apply to two adults, and would not supersede New Hampshire’s ban on polygamy. Some members noted the bill had passed the Senate unanimously and 18-0, while others questioned whether the change was necessary given existing forms and statutes, and whether it could create confusion with other laws such as alimony or divorce paperwork. The discussion became lengthy and somewhat informal, with members debating whether the terminology update was merely clerical or whether it should be postponed for more information from the Secretary of State’s office. Several members expressed frustration that no representative from that office was present. One member, speaking as a family law attorney, argued the bill was redundant because similar information already appears on vital statistics forms and could potentially create unintended issues; others countered that the Legislature should keep statutes consistent with current law and modern terminology. The committee also briefly discussed how marriage certificates and licenses are labeled and how same-sex couples are designated under current law. After a Republican caucus break, the chair called for a nonbinding thumb vote on whether to postpone the bill. The committee voted to come back to the bill later, and the hearing on SB 269 was closed and postponed to a later executive session date. The chair then shifted to other committee business, including preparations for a later discussion with Chief Administrative Justice Ellen Kristo and a family court subcommittee exercise, but no further action was taken on SB 269 during this segment.

Transcript Highlights:

• 36.960> that<03:59:37.159> extra<03:59:37.560> service A lot of our cases do go to ADR

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 2 retirement provisions, focusing on Group Two/Tier B changes in pages 25-39. Jan Goodwin of the New Hampshire Retirement System and deputy chief counsel Mark Kavanaugh explained that the 2025 bill is largely similar to prior versions, but it restores certain pre-2011 benefit rules for Tier B members, including changes to average final compensation and earnable compensation, and it also addresses the annuity multiplier for years of service. Members discussed the tier structure, with Tier A referring to vested members, Tier B to those hired before 11/1/12 who were not vested, and Tier C to later hires. Several members expressed concern that the bill’s purpose was to restore Tier B benefits, not to change Tier A rules or create broader changes affecting newer hires. The retirement system flagged two likely drafting problems. First, it said a provision appears to omit a special-duty/earnable-compensation limitation in the Group Two section, which they believed was a scrivener’s error caused by moving language out of the Group One definition without adding it back for Group Two. Second, they noted the bill’s multiplier language overlaps with changes already enacted in HB 1647, which increased the multiplier for service beyond 15 years for Group Two and carried an estimated $26 million cost. The committee discussed that HB 1647 was originally broader in the House, but the Senate narrowed it to Tier B only. The actuary’s comparison of the 2023 and 2025 HB 2 versions showed the bills are close, but the 2025 version differs in funding and timing. Staff said the 2025 bill appropriates $2.5 million more per year for 10 years, and that, together with updated actuarial assumptions and a larger share of the affected tier having already retired or otherwise left service, results in a larger reduction in unfunded liability than the 2023 bill: about $98.2 million versus $68.5 million. Employer contribution impacts were described as small overall, though the 2025 bill was said to be somewhat more favorable than the 2023 version. Members also questioned why House Bill 1 only funds $5 million in the first year, and staff said that was tied to the governor’s revenue estimate and that the full funding does not begin immediately. No votes were taken in the portion provided; the committee mainly received testimony, asked clarifying questions, and noted that some issues would be addressed in the fiscal note worksheet.