Transcript Highlights:

• despite the general sense that had been that, at the Superior Court level, there was a partial summary judgment
• At the trial level, there was a partial summary judgment on this particular issue.
• In December, shared custody became final judgment, and within weeks he began to find her teenage behaviors
• In December shared custody became final judgment and within weeks he began to find her teenage behaviors

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on the Judiciary

Summary: The Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on a wide range of state, probate, and family bills, with chairs Edwards and Day outlining strict testimony limits and accepting written testimony. Early testimony focused on H. 1911/S. 1138, which would clarify that a durable power of attorney may create a trust if that authority is expressly granted; sponsors and elder law advocates said the bill would resolve uncertainty created by the Barbetti decision and align Massachusetts with other states. A major portion of the hearing centered on S. 1102, a proposal to establish medical panels in Probate and Family Court. Supporters, including attorneys, parents, physicians, and advocates, said neutral three-doctor panels would help judges resolve disputed medical issues in guardianship and custody cases involving children, elders, and people with disabilities. Testifiers described cases where medical treatment was blocked or contested by one parent or guardian, arguing the panels would provide impartial expertise and protect vulnerable people. The committee also heard support for bills addressing disability discrimination in family court, military parents’ custody rights, and a shared parenting bill, H. 1710, which drew strong opposition from domestic violence advocates and others who said a 50-50 presumption could harm survivors and children. The committee also took testimony on several probate and court-administration measures. Senator Lovely supported a bill on nominee trust partition, and Senator Comerford and probate officials backed legislation to codify additional registry staff positions and modernize registry operations. Other bills discussed included foster care liability insurance, with providers warning that rising premiums and loss of coverage could force program closures; health care proxy storage and activation; access to decedents’ email accounts; uniform trust decanting; the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act; heirs’ property partition protections; a constitutional right to health care; alimony-related reforms; child-centered family law; and a right of disposition for funeral arrangements. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the committee repeatedly invited written testimony and follow-up questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those are applied when the scored custody level is changed based upon the professional judgment of correctional
• overrides, I think you were discussing discretionary overrides about people using trained correctional judgment
• People are making judgment calls that this risk-of-flight issue is something that you want to hold down
• overrides that relate to risk of flight, which we have no tool for predicting, and people are making judgment

Summary: The Special Commission on Correctional Consolidation and Collaboration met on January 12 to continue its review of DOC classification practices, with Senator Brownsberger and Representative Hunt co-chairing. After brief discussion of the prior hearing, members said there would likely be another opportunity for additional testimony, including possible video testimony from people inside facilities. The main presentation for the day was DOC’s classification system and a UMass Chan study of whether the system predicts institutional misconduct and whether overrides affect its accuracy or create racial/ethnic bias. DOC officials described the objective point-based classification system, its history, and the role of discretionary and non-discretionary overrides. They said the system is designed to balance public safety and reintegration, with initial classification emphasizing offense history and reclassification emphasizing institutional adjustment. DOC reported that, in the current population, about 16% are classified to maximum security, 74% to medium, and 10% to lower security. They also reviewed the non-discretionary restrictions that keep people out of minimum or medium security, and said discretionary overrides are used less often than the National Institute of Corrections’ suggested ceiling and are reviewed within six months. UMass Chan researchers said their analysis used historical DOC data from 2019 to 2022, focused mainly on about 7,600 male reclassification cases, and found that the scored custody level accurately predicted institutional misconduct. They said the tool performed well on standard statistical measures, but predictive accuracy declined after overrides were applied, with overlap appearing between minimum and medium groups. In a supplementary analysis, they said the loss of accuracy was driven primarily by non-discretionary restrictions rather than discretionary overrides. They also said the study did not find evidence of racial or ethnic bias in the tool itself, and that DOC’s current system is comparatively more lenient than many other states. Members and guests raised concerns about overclassification to medium security, the low share of people in minimum, the role of civil commitment restrictions, and whether the data captured historical bias or individual cases where overrides felt subjective. DOC and UMass Chan responded that the study was group-based, not case-specific, and that minimum-security rates are hard to compare across states because Massachusetts’ prison and county systems differ structurally. The commission did not take a vote or formal action, but asked members to send follow-up data questions by the end of the week for referral to DOC and the researchers.

Transcript Highlights:

• Unfortunately, police officers are not perfect, and judgments are made. And that is my concern.
• <00:42:33.560><c> not</c><00:42:33.880><c> perfect</c><00:42:34.800><c> and</c><00:42:35.000><c> judgments
• </c> officers are not perfect and judgments officers are not perfect and judgments are<00:42:35.800><

Committee: House Criminal Justice and Public Safety

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 409 in executive session, with the chair noting a caucus break to explain amendments to several substitute members. Members discussed a proposed amendment to narrow the bill’s felony provisions by limiting them to specific, knowingly dangerous conduct rather than making the offense too broad. The committee also noted a planned floor amendment to add missing “or” language to clarify that the listed acts were alternatives, not cumulative requirements. The amendment was adopted 13-0, and the bill as amended was then reported OTPA by a 13-0 vote. It was initially said to be headed to consent, but members later agreed it would not go on consent because a floor amendment was anticipated. The committee then opened House Bill 667, which would extend protections for medical personnel into emergency room settings. Supporters said the bill was needed because emergency room staff face increasing assaults and existing protections did not fully cover ER circumstances. Several members described firsthand or secondhand incidents involving nurses, EMTs, and other staff being threatened or injured, and argued that stronger penalties would help deter violence and improve prosecution. Others supported the bill but raised concerns about how it might affect people experiencing mental health crises, dementia, or intellectual and developmental disabilities. A proposed amendment from Representative Sher would exempt people experiencing a mental health crisis who have a mental health diagnosis, and also address dementia and certain developmental disabilities. Supporters said the amendment was narrowly tailored and had backing from the Disability Rights Center, NAMI New Hampshire, and the New Hampshire Nurses Association. Opponents argued that the criminal justice system already has safeguards such as prosecutorial discretion, insanity defenses, and competency rules, and warned against creating special exceptions that could weaken equal application of the law. After debate, the committee voted 10-3 to report HB 667 ought to pass, with members noting that minority and majority reports would be prepared.

Transcript Highlights:

• Younger riders often lack the experience, judgment, and understanding of traffic laws needed to safely
• It's to establish safer operating norms for younger riders who may like the experience in that judgment
• It's to establish safer operating norms for younger riders who may like the experience in that judgment
• A challenge as we're dealing with oftentimes 10-, 12-year-olds that simply just don't have the judgment

Committee: House Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• be very dangerously close to any type of rules violation as far as imputing my speech, but in my judgment
• As far as imputing my speech, but in my judgment and my motivations, so I would ask you to please color
• Okay, members, the question for you is: shall the ruling of the President stand as a judgment of the
• Members, the question for you is: Shall the ruling of the President stand as a judgment of the Senate

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, attendance, and several personal privileges recognizing guests and proclamations, including a Coolidge centennial proclamation, a Pre-born Day of Rights proclamation, and a tribute to retired public servant Carmen Green Smith. The chamber also welcomed various guests and groups in the gallery, including Arizona Right to Life, Reproductive Freedom for All, a doctor of the day, schoolchildren, and community visitors. A motion to suspend the rules and immediately advance SB 1396 on contraception rights failed by a vote of 12 ayes to 16 nays. The Senate then considered House Concurrent Resolution 2053 honoring Brad Brower, adopted it unanimously, observed a moment of silence, and transmitted the resolution to the House. In Committee of the Whole, members considered HB 2072, HB 2307, and HB 2874. HB 2072, dealing with holidays and the César Chávez Day repeal/renaming debate, drew extensive floor debate over a Miranda amendment to rename the day for farm workers; that amendment failed 12-15, and the bill was ultimately advanced as amended by the committee’s striker/repeal language. HB 2307, concerning dangerous and incompetent defendants and a state facility process, received committee and floor amendments and was advanced as amended. HB 2874, relating to campaign committee termination statements and contributions, also received committee and technical floor amendments and was advanced as amended. On final third readings, HB 2874 passed 18-11 with one not voting and was transmitted to the House. HB 2307 passed 27-2 with one not voting and was transmitted to the House, with supporters emphasizing public safety and the emergency clause. HB 272 passed after a lengthy and contentious debate over whether to repeal or rename the holiday associated with César Chávez and the farm worker movement; supporters of repeal cited allegations against Chávez and the need for accountability, while opponents argued the holiday should preserve recognition of farm workers and the movement’s history. The Senate also adopted the Committee of the Whole report and assigned the bills accordingly.

Transcript Highlights:

• Committee, House Bill 2244 provides requirements relating to a motion to compel satisfaction of the judgment
• against the landlord who fails to respond to the judgment.
• Committee, House Bill 2244 provides requirements relating to a motion to compel satisfaction of the judgment
• against the landlord who fails to respond to the judgment.

Summary: The meeting was a caucus-style run-through of many bills and resolutions across Appropriations, Commerce, Education, Federalism/Military Affairs/Elections, Government, Health and Human Services, Judiciary, ENRU, Public Safety, and Rural Economic Development. Measures discussed included housing and HOA rules, school policy and funding, health care licensing and records timelines, public safety and corrections funding, election and campaign rules, water and environmental policy, and several criminal justice and juvenile justice changes. Many items were described as being on third-read consent or consent calendars, with staff often noting that no questions were raised and no sponsor was present. Several bills drew sponsor explanation or member discussion. In education, members reviewed bills on teacher strikes, school safety, math placement, student outcomes, free school meals, parent permission for clubs, and school bond ballot disclosures. In health, bills covered prior authorization data reporting, nursing board rules and complaint procedures, pharmacist testing/treatment authority, opioid antagonist expiration dates, board continuations, and a constitutional amendment on refusing medical mandates. In government and public safety, members discussed DCS legal representation, inmate medical records, public safety parity funding, sheriff authority, border support funding, and a resolution supporting county sheriffs. In commerce and housing, bills addressed condominium and HOA authority, shade structures, pet restrictions, insurance certificates, apprenticeship definitions, automatic renewal contracts, and a state housing affordability district. There was notable discussion on House Bill 4044, which would create a Public Safety Parity Fund for DPS and DOC salaries using interest from the state rainy day fund and other revenue sources. The sponsor argued it would provide a reliable way to fund public safety pay, while others objected that it would consume interest needed to preserve the fund’s value and that a general fund appropriation would be more appropriate. The bill prompted extended back-and-forth, with some members supporting the concept and others saying it was fiscally irresponsible. Another point of discussion came on House Bill 2775, where staff noted a possible misprint in the bill history, and on House Bill 467, where staff clarified that the inactive voter list changes related to e-poll book status categories. No formal votes were recorded in the transcript, and the meeting appears to have been a review of measures before floor action.

Transcript Highlights:

• casted-net lawsuits that cost firms upwards of $50,000 in legal expenses to then be let out on summary judgment
• you heard in prior testimony is not recoverable. ...legal expenses to then be let out on summary judgment
• We pay, we try to get out in summary judgment. If we can't, we have to settle.
• You have to wait until you do discovery, until you get into a motion for summary judgment.

Committees: House Transportation , House Joint Committee on Transportation Oversight

Summary: The Transportation Committee heard testimony on House Bill 2926, which would extend sovereign immunity and a $500,000 liability cap to private contractors and subcontractors working on Missouri Department of Transportation projects under certain conditions. The sponsor and supporters said the bill is intended to protect contractors from being named in lawsuits before they begin work, or when they have followed MoDOT plans and specifications and are being sued as “deep pockets” despite no negligence. Several members repeatedly questioned the bill’s language and whether immunity would apply before work starts, during construction, and after project completion, with witnesses offering differing readings and acknowledging the draft may need clarification. Supporters, including representatives from asphalt, construction, insurance, and engineering groups, argued that contractors are routinely sued in work-zone crashes even when they did nothing wrong, driving up insurance premiums and legal costs that ultimately affect taxpayers and project delivery. They cited examples of lawsuits filed before contractors had even set foot on a site, and said the bill would align Missouri with other states that extend similar protections. Opponents, including trial attorneys, a public advocate, and individuals who described serious injuries or family deaths in MoDOT-related incidents, argued the bill would reduce accountability, limit recovery for injured people, and improperly extend government immunity to private businesses. They said existing tort rules already allow dismissal of claims against parties with no duty or negligence, and warned the bill could make it harder for injured people to find attorneys or recover full damages. The committee did not take a vote during the portion provided. The chair limited testimony as the hearing ran long, and the bill remained under public testimony with additional witnesses still to come.

Transcript Highlights:

• casted-net lawsuits that cost firms upwards of $50,000 in legal expenses, only to be let out on summary judgment
• So those are our options as the insurance company: we pay, we try to get out on summary judgment.
• You have to wait until you do discovery until you get to a motion for summary judgment.
• guarantee, because you could have material facts...” “...until you get into a motion for summary judgment

Committee: House Joint Committee on Transportation Oversight

Summary: The Transportation Committee heard House Bill 2926, which would extend sovereign or derivative immunity and a liability cap to private contractors, subcontractors, and employees working on Missouri Department of Transportation projects. The sponsor and supporters said the bill is intended to protect contractors from being named in lawsuits before they begin work, and to limit exposure when they are following MoDOT plans and specifications, arguing that contractors are often sued as “deep pockets” even when they did nothing wrong. Several members pressed the sponsor on the bill’s wording and timing, noting confusion over whether immunity applies only before work begins or throughout the project and after completion. Supporters, including representatives from asphalt, construction, insurance, and business groups, said the current system drives up insurance costs, increases legal expenses, and discourages firms from taking roadwork jobs. They cited examples of contractors being sued before starting work or after following approved traffic-control plans, and argued that the bill would align Missouri with other states that provide similar protections. Opponents, including trial attorneys and injured workers and family members, argued that the bill would improperly extend government immunity to private businesses, reduce accountability, and limit recovery for seriously injured people. They said existing tort law already protects non-negligent actors and warned that the bill could make it harder for injured parties to find counsel or recover full damages. Testimony also focused on the $500,000 state liability cap, with opponents calling it too low and supporters saying it is already the standard for public entities and should apply to contractors acting on the state’s behalf. Several witnesses described tragic crashes and work-zone incidents on MoDOT projects, while others emphasized that distracted drivers, not contractors, often cause the accidents. The hearing ended without a vote; the committee took only testimony and then adjourned after hearing from both proponents and opponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• February 3rd, 2026, at 11:40 a.m. specifies that a defendant cannot move to set aside a second default judgment
• that is entered within one year of the prior default judgment.
• February 3rd, 2026, at 11:40 a.m. specifies that a defendant cannot move to set aside a second default judgment
• that is entered within one year of the prior default judgment.

Committees: House Government , House House Government Committee of Reference

Transcript Highlights:

• Again, it is exercising judgment. confidence we are trying to restore. confidence we are trying to restore
• this resolution, we're sending a clear message: accountability matters, independence matters, and judgment
• act within our boundaries, act independently, and act with integrity. independence matters, and judgment
• independence matters, and judgment matters.<01:06:31.119><c> For</c><01:06:31.280><c> these</c><01:06

Transcript Highlights:

• Restitution imposed in a judgment bears interest from the date of the judgment.
• question about the provision in the bill repealing the statute imposing interest on restitution judgments
• question about the provision in the bill repealing the statute, imposing interest on restitution judgments

Summary: On January 20, 2026, the committee held public hearings on House Bill 2102, House Bill 2161, and House Bill 2332. HB 2102 would sharply limit legal financial obligations by prohibiting courts from imposing costs unless specifically authorized by statute, repealing many fees and interest on restitution, and making eliminated debts unenforceable and satisfied. The sponsor and supporters argued that LFOs are harmful, inconsistently applied, and create uncollectable debt that burdens indigent defendants and hinders reentry. Opponents, including local government and collections representatives, warned the bill would shift costs to cities and counties, reduce accountability tools, and could cost local jurisdictions millions. No vote was taken. HB 2161 would expand the Attorney General’s authority to issue civil investigative demands for possible violations involving civil rights, labor standards, jail standards, immigration-related restrictions, and police use-of-force laws. Supporters from the Attorney General’s office, labor groups, and civil rights advocates said the bill would make investigations faster and more effective, especially in wage theft and discrimination cases, while not changing substantive enforcement authority. Opponents from law enforcement, cities, and business groups argued the bill was overbroad, lacked sufficient standards, and could create due process, confidentiality, and separation-of-powers concerns. Members asked about safeguards, and staff and the AGO described court challenge procedures and internal review standards. No action was taken. HB 2332 would regulate automated license plate readers used by state and local agencies, generally limiting use to specified law enforcement, parking, toll, and transportation purposes, restricting sharing and retention, and prohibiting uses tied to immigration enforcement or protected health care. The sponsor and privacy, immigrant-rights, and reproductive-rights advocates said the bill was needed to prevent misuse of sensitive location data and to close loopholes that could allow out-of-state or federal access. Law enforcement, cities, vendors, and some business and campus representatives supported privacy guardrails but said the 72-hour retention limit, warrant requirements, and other restrictions were too strict and could hinder investigations, victim recovery, and parking enforcement. The hearing ended with testimony still underway and no vote or final action reported.

Transcript Highlights:

• Artificial intelligence cannot and must not replace the judgment, expertise, accountability, and human
• Nursing is fundamentally relational and requires ethical judgment, and that cannot be safely or ethically
• Nursing is fundamentally relational and requires ethical judgment, and that cannot be safely or ethically
• patient care including screenings limited to intake of information without requiring the exercise of judgment

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 2437, which would put the Department of Health’s authority to accredit opioid treatment programs into statute and allow the department to set a fee to cover the cost of those services. The prime sponsor and DOH said the bill would preserve a service that is especially important to tribal and rural providers and would be self-sustaining rather than supported by the general fund. Members asked about the relationship between DOH and HCA and whether the bill would duplicate existing authority; staff and the department said DOH already performs the accrediting role and the bill mainly formalizes that authority and fee-setting power. Public testimony on the bill was then closed. The committee then held an extensive work session on the federal 340B drug pricing program and later opened public testimony on House Bill 2145, which would prohibit manufacturers, distributors, and third-party logistics providers from restricting 340B drug acquisition or delivery and from requiring claims or utilization data as a condition of access. Committee staff and NCSL gave background on how 340B works, recent growth in the program, contract pharmacy issues, and state efforts in other jurisdictions. Testimony on HB 2145 was sharply divided: hospitals, community health centers, tribal representatives, contract pharmacies, and labor groups said the bill would protect safety-net providers, rural access, HIV and behavioral health services, and tribal programs from manufacturer restrictions; business groups, pharmaceutical companies, and employer coalitions argued the program has expanded beyond its original intent, lacks transparency, shifts costs to employers and taxpayers, and should be addressed through federal reform instead. No vote was taken in the excerpt. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 2155, which would bar non-human entities from using nursing titles such as RN, APRN, or LPN or otherwise implying they are licensed nurses. The prime sponsor said the bill is intended to protect patients from being misled by AI systems and to preserve transparency and public safety as health care technology expands. The Washington State Nurses Association testified in support, saying AI can be useful but should not replace nurses or be presented as a licensed professional. A member asked about enforcement and liability, and staff said they would follow up on those details.

Transcript Highlights:

• Data shows us that we're not, that our reactions are slower, that our judgment is flawed.
• at 0.05, what it feels like to be at 0.08, to understand the impact that alcohol is having on our judgment
• It has a powerful effect on driving by reducing inhibition, alertness, and judgment, and by impairing
• have already started to experience the loss of small muscle control, including eye focus, impaired judgment

Bills: HB2220 , HB2362

Committee: House Community Safety

Keywords: criminal justice training commission, CJTC, law enforcement training, peace officer certification, decertification, corrections officer certification, tribal police certification, police accountability, police oversight, public safety, academy training, in-service training, continuing education, use of force, misconduct investigations, disciplinary hearings, administrative law judge, hearing panel, law enforcement standards, background investigations

Transcript Highlights:

• By way of background, garnishment is a legal process where a judgment creditor may recover funds from
• The current law mandates that judgment creditors provide employers with an official garnishment answer
• In conclusion, Senate Bill 5865 would make the process of reviewing motions for judgment and garnishment
• In conclusion, Senate Bill 5865 would make the process of reviewing motions for judgment and garnishment

Summary: The committee began with introductions and then heard Senate Bill 5865, which would repeal statutory garnishment answer forms and require use of Washington Pattern Forms Committee forms instead. Staff, the prime sponsor, and judges’ association witnesses said the bill is a technical fix that would make garnishment calculations more accurate and efficient without changing substantive law. A collectors’ association witness said the current statutory form can be used if needed until new forms are available and raised concerns about the timeliness of pattern form updates, but was open to working on language. The public hearing on SB 5865 was then closed. The committee next heard Senate Bill 5880, which would allow blood and breath toxicology results to be admissible if tested by an ISO/IEC 17025-certified or accredited forensic lab. The sponsor and supporters, including the Seattle city attorney and traffic safety experts, described severe backlogs at the state toxicology lab, with some DUI blood results taking many months or longer and cases expiring before charges can be filed. Counties, prosecutors, sheriffs, and defense representatives generally agreed the backlog is a serious problem, but several warned the bill could shift costs to local governments, create uneven access to private testing, and raise due process concerns unless discovery cooperation is required. The committee then closed the hearing on SB 5880. Senate Bill 5912 would reinstate the indigent defense task force to study Washington’s public defense system and report recommendations by 2028. Supporters from counties, cities, public defense offices, and tribal interests said the statewide shortage of defense attorneys and rising costs are straining local budgets and delaying access to counsel, especially in rural and eastern Washington. Some witnesses urged the bill be amended to add more stakeholder representation, including clients and practitioners, and cautioned that the task force should not delay immediate action on funding and caseload standards. The hearing on SB 5912 was then closed. The committee also heard Senate Bill 5837, a broad update to guardianship, conservatorship, and protective arrangement procedures. The bill would lower the minimum age for a proposed guardian from 21 to 18, expand notice options, clarify appointment of counsel, and streamline service and hearing procedures. Testimony was largely supportive, especially from kinship caregivers, legal aid, and estate-law practitioners who said the bill would reduce costly publication requirements and improve access to justice, though some witnesses requested amendments on notice, waiver language, emergency procedures, and counsel provisions. The committee reported 40 pro and 70 con sign-ins on the bill, then moved on. Finally, the committee began hearing Senate Bill 5855, which would prohibit law enforcement officers, including federal agents, from wearing facial coverings during public interactions except in limited circumstances such as undercover work, SWAT operations, or health and safety needs. The sponsor and supporters said the bill is intended to increase transparency, accountability, and trust, especially for immigrant and marginalized communities, while opponents argued it could endanger officers, conflict with federal authority, and is tied to ongoing litigation over similar California legislation. Testimony was sharply divided, with some witnesses emphasizing public fear and trauma from masked officers and others arguing the bill would make officers more vulnerable and create constitutional problems. The hearing continued with additional public testimony after the excerpt ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those are applied when the scored custody level is changed based upon the professional judgment of correctional
• And discretionary overrides about people using trained correctional judgment and experience to impart
• overrides that relate to risk of flight, which we have no tool for predicting, and people are making judgment
• overrides that relate to risk of flight, which we have no tool for predicting, and people are making judgment

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Those are applied when the scored custody level is changed based upon the professional judgment of correctional
• And discretionary overrides about people using trained correctional judgment and experience to impart
• People are making judgment calls that this risk-of-flight thing is something that you want to hold down
• overrides that relate to risk of flight, which we have no tool for predicting, and people are making judgment

Summary: The Special Commission on Correctional Consolidation and Collaboration met on January 12 and heard a presentation from Department of Correction officials and UMass Chan researchers on DOC’s objective point-based classification system. DOC described how the system, in place since 2007, uses standardized criteria to assign custody levels and is intended to balance public safety with reintegration. Officials reviewed the system’s initial and reclassification tools, the role of trained classification staff, and the use of non-discretionary restrictions and discretionary overrides. They said the current population is about 16% maximum security, 74% medium, and 10% minimum/pre-release, and that discretionary overrides remain within national guidance levels. UMass Chan presented findings from a multi-year NIJ-funded study using historical DOC data from 2019 to 2022, focused mainly on male reclassification cases. Researchers said the scored custody level predicted institutional misconduct well, with stronger separation between minimum, medium, and maximum groups. They reported violent misconduct in the sample was under 5% over the follow-up period, while general misconduct ranged from about 30% to 45%. When DOC’s override-informed final custody levels were analyzed, predictive accuracy declined somewhat, and researchers said the reduction was driven primarily by non-discretionary restrictions rather than discretionary overrides. They noted that removing the non-discretionary restrictions, especially Code C civil-commitment-related restrictions, improved the model’s performance. Commission members and guests questioned whether the system overclassifies people into medium security, whether the low minimum-security rate reflects infrastructure and risk tolerance differences from other states, and how much historical practice and subjective judgment still affect placement. DOC officials said the restrictions are designed around safety concerns such as flight risk, serious legal issues, and medical needs, and that the system has been revised over time through revalidation. UMass researchers said there is no compelling evidence that release from minimum security is necessary for successful community outcomes once risk level is accounted for, and they emphasized that comparisons with other states are difficult because Massachusetts’ correctional structure is different. The commission asked members to submit follow-up questions for additional data, and a public commenter argued that the data suggest overclassification to medium security harms incarcerated people.

Transcript Highlights:

• the medical malpractice suits and at the end of the day, is that going to increase the amount of judgment
• There's no other judgments out their adverse findings or administrative processes, then that probably
• at the end against that individual provider does that at the end of the day, whether there was a judgment
• The judge doesn't in in in the trials or whatever just gives a money judgment money, can't I back a life

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> There are lots of ifs and caveats in there, and so it'd be a judgment call by DBM and by DLS as
• So, is it possible the judgment could be, since this bill became a law and this number is there, it could
• </c><00:35:23.120><c> call</c><00:35:23.400><c> by</c> there, and so it'd be a judgment call by there
• , and so it'd be a judgment call by DBM<00:35:24.480><c> and</c><00:35:24.720><c> by</c><00:35:24.880
• </c><00:35:34.160><c> this</c><00:35:34.440><c> bill</c> judgment could be since this bill judgment could

Transcript Highlights:

• chairs may limit and redact testimony that includes personal information or information that, in our judgment
• redact testimony that includes sensitive personal information or information that, in the chair's judgment
• and redact testimony that includes sensitive personal information or information in the chair's judgment
• redact testimony that includes sensitive personal information or information that, in the chair's judgment
• redact testimony that includes sensitive personal information or information that, in the chair's judgment

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on the Judiciary

Summary: The hearing covered a wide range of Judiciary Committee bills, with much of the testimony focused on criminal justice, public safety, and civil asset forfeiture reform. Several lawmakers and advocates supported bills to increase penalties or create new offenses related to assaults on sports officials, assaults on transit workers, reckless discharge of firearms, fires and explosives, pill press machines, and drug-induced homicide. Testifiers described rising harassment and violence against youth sports officials and transit workers, as well as the fentanyl overdose crisis and the need for stronger tools to prosecute dealers whose conduct leads to death. Supporters of the sports-official and transit-worker bills emphasized declining referee availability and repeated assaults on commuter rail and MBTA workers. District attorneys also backed bills on reckless firearm discharge and fires/explosives, saying current law does not adequately address dangerous conduct that endangers bystanders. The committee also heard testimony on several proposals related to youth diversion and prison mitigation. Supporters of the youth court justice fund bill said youth courts are peer-led diversion programs with strong compliance and low recidivism, and argued for a stable funding source rather than annual earmarks. A representative from Bridgewater supported a prison mitigation fund for municipalities that host state prisons, saying the costs of public safety and emergency services are not fully covered. On gun policy, testimony split between supporters of a bill to ban in-state manufacture of assault-style rifles for civilian sale and opponents or skeptics of other firearm-related measures, including a bill on collateralizing firearms and a bill to increase penalties for drug trafficking combined with illegal firearm offenses. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to civil asset forfeiture reform. Advocates from the ACLU, CPCS, the Boston Bar Association, the Institute for Justice, and others supported bills to increase the burden of proof, improve transparency and reporting, require counsel, and limit or eliminate the current practice of directing forfeiture proceeds to law enforcement. They argued the current system creates perverse incentives, lacks adequate due process, and is insufficiently transparent. District Attorney Paul Tucker defended current forfeiture practices, saying his office has reporting and oversight, uses the funds for investigations and community programs, and warned that reducing forfeiture revenue would hinder crime fighting. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the hearing; the chairs repeatedly thanked witnesses and indicated the bills would remain under consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• YesCare themselves have another judgment against them in Michigan. It's almost $300 million.
• Yes, Care themselves have They have Yes, Care themselves have They have another<00:15:45.800><c> judgment
• </c><00:15:46.480><c> against</c><00:15:46.960><c> them</c><00:15:47.640><c> in</c> another judgment
• against them in another judgment against them in Michigan.<00:15:48.520><c> It's</c><00:15:48.640><c>
• We have the authority to listen to those and make judgments on those.