Transcript Highlights:

• State Fair Commission.
• I do want to represent the State Fair. It was an extraordinary fair this year.
• Mexico at the fair.
• In the times we live in again, we need fairs. We need our county fairs.
• their fair.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we will be tracking the FAIR Plan's trends as a slowing or reversal of the FAIR Plan growth.
• This means everyone, including the insurance companies-run Fair Plan.
• I have also increased Fair Plan transparency by using my executive authority.
• That we need for the Fair Plan.
• Is our Fair Plan going to be able... Ortega's question is critical.

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee held its fifth oversight hearing on the California Department of Insurance’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy (SIS), with Commissioner Ricardo Lara providing an update on implementation. Lara said the department has finalized major reforms, including new catastrophe modeling tools, faster rate review procedures, use of forward-looking data tied to mitigation, and modernization of the FAIR Plan. He argued the strategy is intended to improve insurance availability in wildfire-prone areas, increase transparency, and stabilize the market, while also criticizing consumer intervenor groups and saying the department will tighten rules on intervener compensation and relevance. Members questioned Lara about when the SIS would begin producing visible market changes, how long rate filings would take to approve, and what the FAIR Plan modernization would mean for consumers’ costs. Lara said catastrophe model approvals should be completed by the end of the month, insurers are expected to begin submitting SIS filings in the coming weeks, and rate reviews have already been reduced from 281 days to 71 days. He also discussed a new market conduct investigation into State Farm’s handling of wildfire claims, ongoing complaints about smoke-damage claims, and a newly created smoke claims and remediation task force to develop standards. Lara said the department has helped more than 12,000 wildfire survivors, with over 38,000 claims filed and more than $17 billion paid, and that it is also working with other western states on underinsurance issues. Public commenters from the insurance industry, homebuilding, and insurance brokerage sectors largely supported the SIS and the department’s efforts, saying the reforms are needed to restore availability and stability. They emphasized the importance of timely rate approvals, FAIR Plan solvency, and greater transparency, and several noted that member companies are preparing to use the new filing process. The hearing ended without a vote or formal action, though members and the commissioner discussed ongoing legislative needs, including AB 226 and possible future FAIR Plan transparency measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• Cliff Munson, manager of the Siskiyou Golden Fair.
• For the Siskiyou Golden Fair and for fairs across the state, this legislation is not simply about the
• For the Siscuit Golden Fair and for fairs across the state, this legislation is not simply about the
• The parent company to California Fairs Alliance.
• Western Fairs Association represents fairs across the Western United States and Canada, and we understand

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:

• fair<00:04:56.000> share talking about the fair share talking about the fair share specifically
• So, of the fair share, um, how old are these projects that have this fair share?
• >> Fair share money.
• on the um the um fair share. on the um the um fair share. >> Go<00:21:46.000> ahead.
• fair share develop? fair share develop?

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint House committees on Housing and Education heard HB 1713, HD1, which would repeal school impact fees and transfer remaining balances in the school impact fee and certain fair share accounts to the school facilities special fund. The Department of Education testified in opposition, while the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, the Attorney General’s office (with comments and suggested constitutional amendments), the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the School Facilities Authority, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, NAP Hawaii, Avalon Development Company, Mark Development, Maui Chamber of Commerce, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Landis Research Foundation, BIA Hawaii, and others testified in support. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii offered comments. The DOE said the bill would weaken a key tool for matching school facilities to residential growth, while supporters said the current program leaves funds unused or restricted in ways that limit their effectiveness. A lengthy discussion followed about the difference between the older school impact fee program and the separate fair share agreements tied to land use entitlements and change-of-zone approvals. DOE Deputy Superintendent Jesse Suki explained that fair share funds are tied to the district where they were collected, may be too small to build a full school on their own, and are held until needed for projects such as Core Ridge, Central and West Maui, and other planned schools. Committee members pressed DOE on why funds had remained unspent for years, how much money was in the accounts, and whether the department had reviewed audit findings about the program. Members also questioned whether homeowners ultimately bear these costs through developers passing them along. The committee did not take a vote during the portion of the meeting provided. The discussion ended with members and DOE debating whether the current statute should remain in place, whether past entitlements should be affected, and whether the bill should be amended to better address remaining construction-related obligations and the use of collected funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• Fairs are the backbone of our communities.
• Fairs Alliance, representing fairs and fairgrounds throughout the state of California.
• Fairs Alliance in support. Thank you.
• I'm a huge supporter of the fair. I always have been.
• Our fair is the National Date Festival and the Midwinter Fair in Imperial, the Colorado River Fair.

Summary: The committee opened with routine announcements, including hearing logistics, public comment instructions, and a brief “fun fact” about National Pecan Month and Ag Day. After establishing a quorum, the committee took up a consent calendar of four bills—AB 2423, AB 2743, AB 2778, and AB 2779—which were approved unanimously. The main item heard was AB 1711 by Assembly Member Conley, which would require more timely distribution of state funds for fairs and fairgrounds and expand allowable uses for those funds. The author and the Western Fairs Association argued that fairs are important for agricultural education, local economies, cultural events, and emergency response, and that delayed funding leads to deferred maintenance and higher costs. Several committee members spoke in strong support, noting the importance of county fairs in their districts and their role as community hubs and emergency shelters. There was no opposition testimony. The committee voted AB 1711 out on a due pass motion to the Appropriations Committee, and the bill ultimately passed unanimously. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's the revenue that the State Fair generates through the state. The Fair then spends.
• State fair awards for the Western Fair Association just recently again for the same type of things.
• I always enjoy the State Fair.
• Fair free.
• make the fair happen.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Fair Districts Act.
• The Fair Districts Amendments are on shakier ground because the Fair Districts Amendments don't emanate
• Zeele has commented about the Fair Districts Act, separately from whether or not the Fair Districts Act
• The Fair District Amendments to the Florida Constitution The Fair District Amendments to the Florida
• because Fair Districts says do not use partisan data.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill is about fairness.
• I think that's a fair solution.
• And it's not fair for... ...the fair share, they wouldn't have to worry about this.
• Let's now turn to fair. The term fair can involve different types of responsibility.
• Fair share, that is tax.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue, chaired by Senator James Eldridge and Representative Adrian Madaro, opened its hearing with a moment of silence for the late Lowell State Senator Ed Kennedy and reviewed hearing procedures and deadlines. The committee then took testimony on several corporate tax bills, including S. 2033/H. 3110 on offshore tax avoidance, H. 3248 on a manufacturing tax exemption, H. 3057 on a tiered corporate minimum tax, and S. 2041 on a corporate tax haven blacklist, along with a separate business interest deduction bill. No votes were taken during the hearing. Supporters of S. 2033/H. 3110, including labor unions, health care workers, educators, public health advocates, seniors, and several legislators, argued that Massachusetts needs new revenue to offset federal cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, health care, education, and other services. They said the bill would raise roughly $400 million annually by increasing the share of offshore profits included in the state tax base from 5% to 50%, and they framed it as a fairness measure that would require large multinational corporations to pay more while leaving most local businesses and workers unaffected. Testimony emphasized risks to MassHealth, PCA services, adult dental care, hospitals, schools, and public health programs if new revenue is not raised. Opponents, including the Mass Taxpayers Foundation and the Council on State Taxation, argued the proposal is poor tax policy and likely unconstitutional because it would tax foreign-source income without allowing foreign tax credits or a comparable apportionment method. They said Massachusetts should take a broader, coordinated approach to federal tax changes rather than a standalone bill, and warned of litigation risk and possible double taxation. Supporters such as MassBudget and former tax counsel Don Griswold countered that the bill is a reasonable rough-justice approach, consistent with federal and neighboring-state treatment, and that it would primarily affect a small number of very large multinationals. On S. 2041, the Global Business Alliance opposed the proposed tax haven blacklist, while supporting a separate bill allowing business interest deductibility.

Transcript Highlights:

• That seems imminently fair.
• Very fair.
• I think that’s fair. I think that’s fair. And that’s why the title of it is the Fair Share...
• I think that’s fair.
• With regard to fair share, With regard to fair share, that is kind of fungible too.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Let's get this done and... bill is about fairness bill is about fairness dignity<00:13:15.199> and
• So the bottom line is that this bill is about fairness, like Samakab said.
• So the bottom line is that this bill is about fairness, like Samakab said.
• have and win on Fair have and win on Fair terms<00:26:51.240> maybe<00:26:51.679> you<
• We were making sure that, you know, the fairness and fair pay and protections has happened, so we knew

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Of the Fair Districts or what action with respect to the Fair Districts Amendment could be considered
• All I've ever wanted in my life is a fair advantage.
• They're asking us to violate the Fair Districts Act.
• Fair Districts was the law—is still true this afternoon.
• It's illegal because of Fair Districts. ... It's illegal.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I do just want to go back to the Fair Districts Act, our Constitution, and Back to the Fair Districts
• of the fair districts or what action with respect to the fair district's amendment could be considered
• All I've ever wanted in my life is a fair advantage.
• You want to have grace and compassion and be fair.
• You want to have grace and compassion and be fair.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session with an opening prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved to the special order calendar to consider congressional redistricting legislation, beginning with Senate Bill 8D and then substituting the identical House Bill 1D. The bill would establish Florida’s congressional districts. Senator Gaetz, presenting the measure, said the Governor had proposed the map to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts, and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible and has occurred before in Florida and other states. He repeatedly said the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal, but that the Governor had the prerogative to propose it. The floor debate focused heavily on the legality and timing of the map, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Louisiana redistricting decision was announced during the session. Several senators, including Rouson, Sharief, Smith, Polsky, Arrington, Bracy Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and Berman, questioned whether the map complied with the Florida Constitution’s Fair Districts Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, and equal protection principles. They raised concerns about the short notice, lack of statewide public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony from the Governor’s representatives, the claimed severability of the Fair Districts Amendment, and the impact on minority communities and communities of interest. Gaetz generally declined to offer legal opinions, saying those issues would ultimately be for the courts, but he relayed the Governor’s position that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional and that the proposed map is race-neutral and compact. Members also debated whether the map’s population data and compactness scores justified the district lines, with critics arguing that the plan cracked and split communities in places such as Central Florida, Tampa Bay, and South Florida. Gaetz said the Governor’s office relied on 2020 census data plus updated population estimates from the Office of Economic and Demographic Research and the American Community Survey, and that the mapmaker said he drew the map himself without outside consultants. After questions concluded, the Senate adopted a motion to substitute HB 1D for SB 8D, read the bill a third time, and proceeded to debate the House bill. The transcript ends during debate, with no final vote on passage shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I do just want to go back to the Fair Districts Act, our Constitution and Back to the Fair Districts
• All I've ever wanted in my life is a fair advantage.
• They're asking us to violate the Fair Districts Act.
• It's illegal because of fair district... It's illegal.
• No regard to the Florida Fair Districts Amendment.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituting identical House Bill 1D, to establish Florida’s congressional districts. The opening prayer and Pledge of Allegiance were followed by procedural remarks, then extensive floor discussion focused almost entirely on the redistricting proposal, its timing, and its legal basis. Senator Gaetz, explaining the bill, said the Governor had transmitted the map two days earlier, argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is not prohibited by law, and said the Governor’s stated reasons were to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts. He also said the legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal. Much of the debate centered on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Louisiana decision and whether it affected Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators Smith, Rouson, Sharief, Polsky, Arrington, Bracey Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and others questioned the short notice, lack of public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony, and whether the map diluted minority voting strength or fragmented communities of interest. Gaetz repeatedly said he was not offering legal opinions, that the Governor’s counsel believed the Fair Districts race-based provisions were inconsistent with federal law, and that any legal challenge would be for the courts. He also said the Governor’s mapmaker reported using census and demographic data, along with political data as one of many inputs, and claimed the map’s compactness was comparable to the current map. A motion by Senator Smith to temporarily postpone consideration of the bill failed on a 12-23 vote. After the Senate returned from a 30-minute break to review the new Supreme Court decision, debate continued. The chamber then substituted HB 1D for SB 8D, read the House bill, and advanced it to third reading. The transcript ends during debate on final passage, with Senators Rouson and Bernard speaking in opposition and arguing the map was procedurally rushed, legally vulnerable, and politically motivated.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Fair Districts Act.
• The Fair Districting Amendments are on shakier ground because the Fair Districting Amendments don't emanate
• Thank you. ...to render the Fair Districts Amendment, that the race provision in the Fair Districts Amendment
• Zeele has commented about the Fair District Act, separately from whether or not the Fair District Act
• The Fair District Amendments to the Florida Constitution, The Fair District Amendments to the Florida

Summary: The Committee on Rules met with a quorum and heard a Governor’s Office presentation on a proposed congressional reapportionment map. The governor’s counsel argued that mid-cycle congressional redistricting is legally permissible, that race should not be considered at all in drawing districts, and that the Florida Fair Districts provisions are inconsistent with federal equal protection law and should be treated as non-severable. The presentation also discussed the pending U.S. Supreme Court case Louisiana v. Callais and the Florida Supreme Court’s Black Voters Matter decision as part of the legal rationale for the map. Jason Parada, who said he drew the map alone, described the map as based on 2020 census block data, with county-level population estimates used only as a guide to identify faster-growing areas. He said the plan keeps 48 counties and 382 municipalities whole, has compactness scores similar to the current benchmark map, and uses traditional geographic and political boundaries such as roads, railways, county lines, and municipal lines. He walked through regional changes, emphasizing a race-neutral redesign that significantly altered South Florida, including changes to districts in Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and the Everglades, while leaving several northern districts largely unchanged. Members questioned the witnesses extensively about the legal theory, the use of partisan data, the role of race, population growth, and the timing and review of the map. The witnesses said partisan data was considered along with other traditional redistricting criteria, but race was not used. They also said they could not speak to who else reviewed the map beyond EOG staff and counsel. Several senators raised concerns about the map’s compactness, county and city splits, the apparent partisan effects, and the fact that the map was released shortly before the special session. No vote or final action on the map was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Fair Districts Act.
• The Fair Districts Amendments are on shakier ground because the Fair Districts Amendments don't emanate
• Is that fair? So I used the 2020 census data exclusively.
• Zeele has commented about the Fair District Act, separately from whether or not the Fair District Act
• because Fair Districts says do not use partisan data.

Summary: The Committee on Rules met with a quorum present and took up a presentation from the Governor’s office on proposed congressional reapportionment. Executive Office of the Governor counsel Mo Jazeel argued that mid-cycle congressional redistricting is legally permissible, that race should not be used in drawing districts, and that the Florida Fair Districts provisions are inconsistent with federal equal protection principles and, in the executive branch’s view, are inseverable. Jason Parada then presented the proposed map, explaining that it was drawn using 2020 census block data, with county growth estimates used only as a guide, and that the plan was designed to be race-neutral while also considering compactness, county and municipal boundaries, and other traditional redistricting criteria. He said the map keeps 48 counties and 382 municipalities whole, has compactness scores comparable to the current map, and makes the largest changes in South Florida, with some districts remaining unchanged and others reconfigured around population shifts and geographic boundaries. Members questioned both presenters extensively about the legal basis for disregarding the Fair Districts Amendment, the use of partisan data, the absence of racial analysis, and whether the map truly reflects population growth. Jazeel said the executive branch’s position is that race-based provisions in the state constitution cannot be used if they conflict with the U.S. Constitution, and that the forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Calais could further clarify the law. Parada said he did not use race in drawing the map, did use partisan information as one of several traditional criteria, and relied on 2020 census data for population equality. Senators also pressed him on who reviewed the map, why the public and legislators had limited time to review it, and whether the plan was intended to favor Republicans; Parada denied partisan intent and said he was the only person who moved lines on the map, though he consulted with other Executive Office of the Governor staff and counsel. Several senators raised concerns that the map did not clearly reflect Florida’s recent population growth, that some districts remained highly irregular, and that the plan appeared to be based on a legal theory contingent on future court rulings. The presenters responded that congressional districts must be equal to the person, that growth estimates can only guide orientation rather than replace census data, and that the map was designed to preserve as much of the existing structure as possible while making the largest adjustments in South Florida. No vote or final action on the map was taken during the excerpted portion of the meeting, and the committee continued with questions and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• All of these to start the improvement of that State Fair area.
• It's not the State Fair District Board that decides that. It's the State Fair Commission.
• Ten days out of the year there's a State Fair there.
• And this state fair TID district can use 75% of that.
• They don't have a master plan for the State Fair yet.

Bills: SB48, SB64, SB100

Keywords: State Fairgrounds District, fairgrounds bonds, public financing, bond authorization, gross receipts tax, gaming tax, tax-backed bonds, infrastructure funding, Albuquerque fairgrounds, State Fair Tid, economic development, municipal bonds, revenue pledge, capital projects, New Mexico finance, special education, office of special education, deputy secretary, public education department, IEP

Transcript Highlights:

• Fair. to see what we're doing.
• 32 fairs in this country. and no fair represents their culture the way that we do.
• It's not just the fair event.
• But the Fair itself is the safest State Fair in the United States of America.
• or on the grounds of the Fair?

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:36:25.680> teams Bill 162 eliminates the fair teams Bill 162 eliminates the fair teams
• if you have a fair teams model somewhere if you have a fair teams model somewhere in<00:39:07.920>
• bring up that this bill with the fair bring up that this bill with the fair team<00:42:11.920>
• those good intentions of the fair team. those good intentions of the fair team.
• <00:48:07.520> That services for fair team clients. That services for fair team clients.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee met with a quorum and took up Senate Bill 50, sponsored by Chair Storm and President Stivers, a broad probate and trust measure. Stivers and attorney Barry explained that the bill updates Kentucky probate and intestacy procedures to better fit electronic filing and modern family structures, adjusts inheritance tax classifications to reflect longer lifespans and more complex family relationships, and adopts newer trust tools used in other states, including electronic wills and directed trusts. They also described a domestic asset protection trust provision, saying it is intended to level the playing field with other states and is not meant to help people evade existing creditors; they noted one non-uniform section may have fiscal impact and could warrant referral to Appropriations and Revenue. Members asked about the asset protection trust language, especially whether it could shield assets after a lawsuit is pending or threatened. Barry said the bill would not allow transfers to defeat existing or threatened claims and that the protection only applies where there are no such claims at the time of transfer. Senators also discussed whether the trust could be used for spendthrift-style family planning, with Barry noting trusts can already be drafted for that purpose and that the bill is not aimed at that issue. Senator Thomas requested more detail on the inheritance tax changes, and Stivers explained that the bill would move more beneficiaries into the no-tax category because estates now often pass to older children, grandchildren, and step-relatives, creating unexpected tax liability. He and others said the changes were meant to reflect modern family patterns and longer life expectancy, and Thomas said he was not opposed to the tax changes but wanted the public to understand them. Tim Shank of the Kentucky Bankers Association testified that the bankers were not opposing the bill overall but had concerns about the domestic asset protection trust section, particularly its treatment of existing mortgages and creditor claims. He said the bill’s notice and claim-extinguishment provisions could create unintended consequences for mortgage holders, and he urged changes to protect existing debt. In response, Senator Thomas questioned whether a lender that takes no action for the bill’s six-month-to-two-year claim period should lose its claim, but Shank replied that federal mortgage rules and payment status could complicate that assumption. The discussion ended with acknowledgment that the mortgage issue was likely unintended and would need further review.

Transcript Highlights:

• Of the Fair Districts or what action with respect to the Fair Districts Amendment could be considered
• of the fair districts or what action with respect to the fair district's amendment could be considered
• All I've ever wanted in my life is a fair advantage.
• They're asking us to violate the Fair Districts Act.
• No regard to the Florida Fair Districts Amendment.

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• come into a fair team go out of a fair come into a fair team go out of a fair team<01:30:58.960>
• <01:31:05.040> Um the fair team level. Um the fair team level.
• I'm a big fan of the fair team concept. I'm a big fan of the fair team concept.
• 31:22.400> were<01:31:22.639> our think frankly fair teams were our think frankly fair
• scale uh of the fair team. scale uh of the fair team.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00:00 Roll Call: 00:00:08 Agency Updates: 00:01:27 Truancy: 00:01:43, 958, all

Summary: The Juvenile Justice Oversight Council met on October 8, 2025, approved the minutes from the August 29 meeting, and then focused its agenda on truancy and chronic absenteeism. Chad Butler, director of pupil personnel for Meade County and president of the Kentucky Department of Pupil Personnel directors, said chronic absenteeism remains a major problem statewide, citing recent Kentucky rates around 28% to 30% and noting that schools are trying to identify best practices to get students back in class. He said causes appear to include post-COVID social-emotional distress and confusion about when students should stay home, and he described a local effort to use a Healthy Kids Clinic model to keep some students in school when possible. In response to questions, he said chronic absenteeism has only been tracked seriously in the last two to three years and that House Bill 611 appears to have increased the number of youth entering the court system for habitual truancy; AOC said it would provide county-by-county data and outcomes later in the meeting. The council then heard from John Tyson of Alabama, a former Mobile district attorney, who described the Helping Families Initiative as a school-community partnership designed to address truancy and related behavior issues without arrest. Tyson said Alabama defines chronic absence as missing 10% of the school year and emphasized that the program is preventive rather than punitive, using warning letters, family engagement, assessments, individualized intervention plans, and referrals to community services. He said the program has operated since 2003, now includes 20 district attorneys and 44 school systems, and served more than 95,000 students, 73,000 families, and 162,000 parents in the most recent year. Tyson reported that in Mobile County the program was associated with a 3.15% attendance improvement in 2023-24 and a 4% reduction in the issue in 2024-25, along with a 50% reduction in truancy and 58% reduction in chronic absenteeism, and he said the program produced a large return on investment. Tyson also stressed that student absenteeism wastes tax dollars and that better attendance improves educational outcomes and community safety. He described the program’s use of a case-management database, real-time data tracking, and more than 1,000 referral agencies, and said the model is intended to be replicated statewide. He closed with examples of students whose attendance and family circumstances required coordinated support rather than punishment, including a teen mother and a disruptive child, to illustrate his view that schools, courts, and social services should work together to address underlying needs and keep children in school.