Transcript Highlights:

• A specific goal and must ask the Legislature for a special act.
• They're special.
• Each local delegation operates according to its own internal rules.
• Holcomb, why is Miami-Dade special?
• So, as you mentioned, certain delegations have different rules.

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee heard and passed two measures before receiving a staff presentation on the local bill process and local delegation meetings. HB 4007, by Rep. Snyder, would cap reimbursement for certain inmate emergency medical services in Martin County at 110% of the Medicare rate, with a higher cap if a provider shows it is operating at a loss. Snyder said the bill is intended to create predictability and save taxpayer dollars; members asked about fiscal effects and whether other counties could adopt similar language. Public testimony came in support from Martin County and related local officials, and the bill was reported favorably by a 17-0 vote. The committee also passed HM 4005, by Rep. Daly, which urges Congress to increase Florida National Guard force structure. Daly argued Florida’s troop allocation is outdated and inadequate for the state’s population and disaster demands, contributing to burnout and recruiting problems. Members asked about the basis for the current allocation, possible budget and infrastructure impacts, and the National Guard’s needs; there was no opposition or public testimony, and the memorial was reported favorably by a 17-0 vote. After the votes, Reps. Holcomb and Kendall gave a detailed presentation explaining how local bills differ from general laws, constitutional limits on local legislation, required local delegation meetings and notice, certification and economic impact forms, and amendment procedures. Members asked several process questions, including about multi-county delegations and Miami-Dade’s special status. The meeting ended with a few recognitions and adjournment before session.

Transcript Highlights:

• February 26, 2006, the Judiciary and Rules Committee reports, February 26, 2006, the Judiciary and Rules
• It's not expanding special education funding.
• You have a special place in my heart for every child.
• We need to define who needs the special ed monies.
• In the state of Idaho, we have about 141,200 special-needs children.

Transcript Highlights:

• Madam Rules Chair, you're recognized for motions. Mr.
• President, I move that rules be waived and SJR 2F and SB 4F be placed on the special order calendar for
• I further move that the rules be waived to establish the special order calendar for the remainder of
• Rules be waived and SJR 2F and SB 4F be placed on the special order calendar for Tuesday, June 2, with
• I further move that the rules be waived to establish the special order calendar for the remainder of

Transcript Highlights:

• They only want to rule on statute.
• passed a special assessment.
• I think people need to look up Dillon's rule versus home rule.
• I think there's a people need to look up Dillon's rule versus home rule.
• Okay, the difference being that Dillon's rule is the Rule versus home rule, okay?

Committee: Senate Senate Government Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee first considered SB 1825, which would shift the precinct committeeman vacancy application and nomination process from county party chairs to legislative district chairs where established, and require applicants to submit to the authorized chair within five days. Supporters said the change would streamline appointments, reduce bottlenecks in large counties, and strengthen grassroots, bottom-up party organization. County supervisors’ association staff said they had no objection to the district-chair process but raised concern that the five-day deadline for boards to act was too short. The committee adopted a do pass recommendation on SB 1825, with members noting the five-day issue should be worked out later. The committee then heard SB 1566, as amended, which targets malicious delays by municipalities, counties, the state, or state agencies in licensing and permit decisions, with a civil penalty and Attorney General enforcement. The amendment narrowed the bill to statutory licensing timeframes for single-family residential construction and clarified definitions and certificate-of-occupancy authority. The sponsor and home builders argued the bill would deter intentional delays that add to housing costs, while questions focused on how malice would be proven and whether the language was too broad. The committee adopted the amendment and gave SB 1566 a do pass as amended recommendation. Next, SB 1571, as amended, would bar monopoly utilities from passing marketing, sponsorship, community relations, and similar costs through to ratepayers, require annual reporting and attestation, and define the covered utilities. Supporters said ratepayers should not fund utility advertising or sponsorships, especially amid rising rates, while opponents from municipal and public-power utilities warned the language could sweep too broadly and interfere with legitimate customer communications, especially for smaller not-for-profit systems. The committee adopted the strike-everything amendment and gave the bill a do pass as amended recommendation. The committee also advanced SB 1501, expanding Administrative Rules Oversight Committee review to include whether agency actions exceed statutory authority, and SB 1805, requiring county recorders to verify the notary status on quitclaim deeds before recording them; both received do pass recommendations despite some concerns about scope and administrative burden.

Transcript Highlights:

• Read the proclamation calling the special session.
• Madam Rules Chair, you're recognized for motions. Mr.
• Rules be waived and SJR 2F and SB 4F be placed on the special order calendar for Tuesday, June 2nd, with
• I further move that the rules be waived to establish the special order calendar for the remainder of
• The special order calendar group will not be meeting tonight.

Transcript Highlights:

• Subdivision 2 requests special rule flexibility regarding exemptions from the requirements for establishing
• Subdivision 2 requests special rule flexibility regarding exemptions from the requirements for establishing
• Subdivision 2 permits special rules for the opportunity site, including exemption from blight rules and
• Subdivision 2 permits special rules for the opportunity site, including exemption from blight rules and
• Subdivision 2 allows for special rules that would exempt the mall site from required blight findings

Committee: Senate Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• Any reports of special committees? There are no reports of special committees.
• House Concurrent Resolution 301 by the House Rules Committee, suspending Rules 47 and 55 of the Uniform
• Rules of the Alaska State Legislature relating to the carryover of bills to a special session, and House
• Rules of the State Legislature relating to the carryover of bills into a special session.
• Confidentiality rules for AGDC are narrower than the House version.

Transcript Highlights:

• They all have their own mayors, so they are big on home rule, which makes me big on home rule, to help
• The Municipal Home Rule Powers Act was intended to provide municipalities with broad home rule powers
• They can adopt general laws to implement the constitutional provision of home rule powers or adopt special
• It can adopt general laws to implement the constitutional provision of home rule powers or adopt special
• I'm probably 90 to 95 percent home rule.

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee held its first meeting of the 2025 session and focused on an overview of county and municipal home rule powers and state preemption. After roll call and member introductions, Chair Alex Rizzo and Vice Chair Griff Griffiths explained the constitutional and statutory basis for local self-government, the distinction between charter and non-charter counties, and how express and implied preemption limit local authority. Griffiths emphasized that home rule gives local governments broad power to address community needs, but the Legislature can override that authority through clear preemption, with courts ultimately deciding disputes. Representatives Holcomb and LaMarca added that local issues should generally be addressed locally first, but statewide standards can be appropriate when uniformity is needed or local action is ineffective. The committee then heard from a panel representing counties, cities, business, and construction interests: Ginger Delegal of the Florida Association of Counties, Carolyn Johnson of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, Rebecca O'Hara of the Florida League of Cities, and Carol Bowen of Associated Builders and Contractors of Florida. Delegal and O'Hara argued that home rule is rooted in local autonomy, policy experimentation, and accountability to voters, and warned against broad or “vacuum” preemptions that remove local authority without replacing it with state regulation. Johnson and Bowen supported preemption when local rules create a patchwork that hurts statewide competitiveness, raises costs, or complicates business operations, citing examples such as labor rules, heat safety, permitting, and procurement preferences. The panel also discussed the 2023 local ordinances law, which requires business impact estimates and provides attorney’s fees in certain challenges, as a mechanism to resolve disputes locally before resorting to preemption. Members questioned the panel about the 2024 heat-safety preemption and how to protect workers in the absence of local ordinances. Business representatives said existing OSHA duties and industry best practices already require employers to provide safe conditions, while local governments and the state should avoid inconsistent standards across jurisdictions. Another discussion centered on construction permitting, licensing, and local boards that may slow projects and increase costs; Bowen suggested eliminating redundant local fees and barriers while preserving statewide licensing and enforcement against bad actors. No votes were taken, and the meeting remained informational, with the chair inviting continued discussion on when preemption is appropriate versus when local governments should retain authority.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> with disabilities will receive special with disabilities will receive special education education
• </c><00:02:54.760><c> service</c><00:02:55.360><c> special</c> receive special service special receive
• special service special education education education services<00:02:57.720><c> I'm</c><00:02:57.920
• a</c><00:11:33.320><c> highly</c> rules special education is a highly rules special education is a highly
• </c> special education teach uh special special education teach uh special education<02:22:19.960><c>

Summary: The House Education Policy and Administration Committee heard testimony on HB 222, which would repeal the requirement that a chartered public school and the resident school district sign a memorandum of understanding on how students with disabilities will receive special education services. The prime sponsor, Rep. Peggy Balboni, said the bill was requested by the New Hampshire Association of Special Education Administrators and the New Hampshire Alliance for Public Charter Schools. She argued that federal and state law already require districts to provide FAPE and that the MOU requirement has created extra work, legal costs, and delays without improving services. She said many MOUs remain unsigned, but students are still receiving services and complaint numbers have not changed. Rep. Mooney also supported repeal, calling the MOU duplicative and impractical because IEPs and 504 plans already govern services. Testimony from Jane B. Brulu of the special education administrators’ association and Beth McLure of the charter schools alliance echoed that view, saying the MOU has not helped students, has added hours of work and legal fees, and has mostly been a source of disputes over funding and service costs. McLure said her school has worked with more than 15 districts and has always been able to reach agreements, though the first year of the requirement took substantial time and money. Committee members asked about the original purpose of the law, unsigned MOUs, and whether disputes could be resolved without the requirement. A representative from the Department of Education said the MOU was originally proposed to address reports that some students were not getting services on time and to provide some oversight, but the department has no authority to order charter schools or districts to agree and no appeal process if they cannot. The department also said it does not currently audit charter school special education services because it lacks authority to monitor charter schools directly, and it urged the committee to consider some alternative oversight if the MOU requirement is repealed. The hearing on HB 222 was then closed, and the committee announced it would begin the hearing on HB 699 after a short break.

Transcript Highlights:

• This home rule petition also includes important safeguards by requiring the City Council This home rule
• Town meeting rules were followed and the vote clearly passed.
• During special town meeting, the moderator allowed for comments for and against, During special town
• I then signed petitions for this special town meeting.
• I then signed petitions for this special town meeting.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Election Laws

Transcript Highlights:

• They only adopt or amend rules when the legislature has told the department to adopt or amend rules under
• They only adopt or amend rules when the legislature has told the department to adopt or amend rules under
• </c><00:14:08.920><c> under</c> um they adopt or amend rules under um they adopt or amend rules under
• <00:15:31.519><c> education</c> special education special education laws<00:15:33.800><c> and</c><00:
• Special education, there were some major changes with regard to special education licenses in response

Committee: House Education Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• So it's not like these are the special sessions of old, which were truly special.
• Some of your ideas are better though in the Senate rules, because that's really where those House rules
• session after special session.
• , or it's two specials...
• Because you could end up in specials after Labor Day and two specials later you're into...

Bills: SB 53 , SB 54 , HB16 , SB 19

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> The statutes which we have in place now, when we're dealing with special education rules, allow
• And then states like New Hampshire add our own requirements so that our special education rules, which
• And then states like New Hampshire add our own requirements so that our special education rules, which
• And then states like New Hampshire add our own requirements so that our special education rules, which
• and and every piece of our special education<00:38:24.560><c> rules</c><00:38:24.960><c> were</c><00

Committee: Senate Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:01:20.000><c> education</c> on the backs of special education on the backs of special education
• </c> first you mentioned the uh special first you mentioned the uh special education.<00:04:02.799><c
• </c><00:04:08.319><c> cuts,</c> commission on special education cuts, commission on special education
• </c> what I did sign was uh regarding special what I did sign was uh regarding special session<00:05:
• And so, uh, for us, there wasn't a lot of gain in suspending the rules or in not suspending the rules

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we have before us a proposed rule, Senate Rule 15-9, and it is created to read as follows.
• That is not what this rule is rules.
• of any of the rules, not just the rules that say we can?
• So, it's Senate rule<00:33:14.320><c> 2-2F</c> rule 2-2F rule 2-2F says,<00:33:17.200><c> "He</c><00:
• what was the rule reference?

Summary: The Rules Committee met to consider a proposed Senate Rule 15-9 prohibiting campaign contributions in Senate-controlled areas of the Capitol, prompted by concerns about lobbyists and others distributing checks to legislators while legislation is pending. The chair read a leadership statement condemning campaign contributions during session when donors’ interests are under consideration, saying such conduct creates at least the appearance of impropriety and undermines public trust. The initial draft would bar soliciting, offering, delivering, accepting, or receiving campaign contributions in Senate-controlled spaces such as the chamber, gallery, floor, corridors, lounge, lobby areas, and committee rooms. Senator Barlo raised concerns about defining the Senate’s authority and the scope of the prohibited areas, asking whether the rule would apply year-round, during interim meetings, or to online donations received while in the building. Other members responded that the Senate could only regulate areas under its control and that the rule should focus on the Capitol building itself, where fundraising should not occur. The chair noted that many other states have similar restrictions, and members discussed whether the rule should also cover campaign contributions during legislative session, not just inside the building. Senators Guru, Rothfus, and Biteman generally supported a stronger rule aimed at preventing vote buying and preserving the integrity of the institution, while acknowledging the need to refine language for enforcement and scope. The committee reviewed examples from Alaska and Wyoming’s constitutional bribery language, and staff and members proposed revised wording that would prohibit any person from knowingly soliciting, offering, delivering, accepting, or receiving campaign contributions in the state capital complex at any time, and separately prohibit senators from knowingly soliciting or knowingly accepting contributions by affirmative act during regular or special session. The discussion ended with no final vote taken, and members indicated they would continue working on the language with staff.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any reports of special committees? There are no reports of special committees.
• House Concurrent Resolution 301 by the House Rules Committee, suspending Rules 47 and 55 of the Uniform
• Rules of the Alaska State Legislature relating to the carryover of bills to a special session, and House
• Rules of the State Legislature relating to the carryover of bills into a special session.
• Confidentiality rules for AGDC are narrower than the House version.

Summary: The House convened with a quorum, opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, and approved the journal and the prayer for the record. The clerk read gubernatorial messages calling the legislature into a third special session and describing the call around House Bill 381, a major natural gas project bill addressing property taxes, municipal taxes, AGDC, reporting requirements, contract approval, an alternative volumetric tax, municipal impact grants, and related provisions. Messages from the Senate reported passage of a Senate-amended version of HB 381 and transmission of Senate Concurrent Resolution 203 to suspend certain rules related to the bill. The House introduced HCR 301 and HCR 302. HCR 301, which suspends rules on carryover of bills into a special session, passed 40-0. The House then took up the Senate amendments to HB 381. The Majority Leader outlined the Senate changes, including new school funding provisions, reorganization and oversight of AGDC funds, a public project dashboard, stricter bond approval requirements, a heating fuel assistance fund, changes to the alternative volumetric tax structure and distribution of revenues, a permanent rather than sunsetted tax break, new deadlines tied to final investment decision and construction, and a new graduated income tax on certain pass-through entities. He urged members to vote no on concurrence, and the House rejected concurrence 12-28. Because the House did not concur, the Speaker appointed a conference committee on HB 381 consisting of Representative Schrage, the Majority Leader, Representative Edgmon, and Representative Ruffridge. HCR 302, authorizing the House and Senate to recess for more than three days, passed 40-0 after members stated the recess was intended to allow conference negotiations to continue and that the body would return on a time certain. The House also received two governor-request bills, HB 3001 and HB 3002, both referred to the Finance Committee. The House then excused several members for specified absences and adjourned until July 1 at 10:30 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• rules.
• I think it was seven rules in the last year of all the rules filed.
• I think it was seven rules in the last year of all the rules filed.
• Gentlemen, can you give an example of an agency rule, like a proposed rule?
• Typically, they can amend the rule at any point right... ...on the rule.

Committee: House Special Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 2934, which would consolidate the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission and the Regional Sports Authority into a single reconstituted board to govern the Dome and Convention Center complex. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would modernize governance, clarify tax revenue use, and create a convention district funding structure without imposing new general taxes on residents or businesses. Testimony emphasized the facilities’ economic impact, including about $205 million annually, roughly 120 full-time jobs and over 4,000 part-time jobs, and support from Explore St. Louis, hotel interests, the RSA, St. Charles County, and Greater St. Louis, Inc. Committee members asked detailed questions about board representation, ownership, liens, and the proposed sales tax and special assessment tools; supporters said the taxes would apply only within the district, be capped, and be used for maintenance and operations. No opposition testimony was offered. The committee then heard House Bill 2559, the REINS Act, which would require affirmative legislative approval for administrative rules with fiscal notes over $250,000 before they could take effect. The sponsor and an Americans for Prosperity witness argued that major rules should not become binding without a vote of elected lawmakers, especially after Missouri’s recent move away from judicial deference to agencies. They said the bill would strengthen checks and balances, with emergency rules and rules needed for federal compliance exempted. Members questioned the $250,000 threshold, how it would work procedurally, and whether agencies might try to avoid the trigger; the sponsor said the process would shift major rules from an opt-out to an opt-in framework through concurrent resolution. No vote was taken on the bill in the transcript. The committee also heard House Bill 2928, which would add certification by the United States Concealed Carry Association as an approved qualification for concealed carry instructors in Missouri. The sponsor said the change would simply expand the list of recognized instructor credentials alongside NRA and law enforcement certification, and members asked about the state registry and sheriff’s role in verifying instructors. House Bill 1752 was then heard, a fire protection district ethics measure requiring surplus property to be sold through sealed bid or an approved online auction platform such as govdeals.com. The sponsor and a fire district witness said the bill was meant to prevent improper sales to insiders and ensure transparent disposal of public property; several members supported it and suggested it could be a consent bill. The transcript ends with the committee concluding its hearing after no opposition or informational testimony on HB 1752.

Transcript Highlights:

• Read the proclamation calling the special session.
• Madam Rules Chair, you're recognized for motions. Mr.
• Rules be waived and SJR 2F and SB 4F be placed on the special order calendar for Tuesday, June 2nd, with
• I further move that the rules be waived to establish the special order calendar for the remainder of
• The special order calendar group will not be meeting tonight.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session with a quorum present, opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, and then read the Governor’s proclamation calling the session. The special session was called to consider property tax-related legislation, including a proposed constitutional amendment affecting assessment caps, homestead exemptions, and limits on county and municipal ad valorem taxes, along with related implementing measures such as ballot language, taxpayer notices, supermajority requirements for tax increases above the rolled-back rate, and a public website showing estimated savings for homestead properties. The bills filed within the call were read for the first time: Senate Joint Resolution 2F by Senator Avila and Senate Bill 4F by Senator Avila, both referred to Appropriations. The Rules Chair announced the Appropriations Committee would meet later that day, and the Senate adopted motions to waive rules and place both measures on the special order calendar for Tuesday, June 2, with an amendment deadline one hour before convening. The Senate also adopted a motion sending any bills filed outside the call to the Rules Committee for review. The chamber then heard farewell remarks from Senators Hooper and Polsky, who reflected on their service and thanked colleagues, staff, and constituents. Senator Hooper emphasized respect and kindness in public service, while Senator Polsky thanked local officials, staff, caucus members, and family, and noted the importance of bipartisan work. The Senate adjourned until 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 2, or upon the President’s call.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now we're on special order. Mr. President, I have a report from the committee on rules. All right.
• Report from the committee on rules: Senate Resolution Number 48, special order calendar, be it resolved
• A special order calendar is adopted. All right. One other special guest we've got.
• Cuz I want to save it, you know, for a special time. For a special moment.
• He gets about the 10-piece special. You know what I'm saying? The 10-piece special...

Bills: SJR 12 , SJR 37 , SB 7 , SB 8 , SB 16 , SB 27 , SB 108 , SB 125 , SB 207 , SB 251 , SB 318 , SB 371 , SB 379 , SB 396 , SB 406 , SB 472 , SB 503 , SB 533 , SB 578 , SB 599 , SB 608 , SB 617 , SB 621 , SB 689 , SB 707 , SB 763 , SB 836 , SB 854 , SB 856 , SB 857 , SB 875 , SB 878 , SB 906 , SB 922 , SB 942 , SB 965 , SB 985 , SB 988 , SB 1021 , SB 1059 , SB 1084 , SB 1098 , SB 1185 , SB 1188 , SB 1202 , SB 1207 , SB 1307 , SB 1321 , SB 1330 , SB 1366 , SB 1388 , SB 1396 , SB 1453 , SB 1484 , SB 1497 , SB 1498 , SB 1535 , SB 1563 , SB 1596 , SB 1610 , SB 1619 , SB 1737 , SB 1738 , SB 1741 , SB 1816 , SB 1822 , SB 1841 , SB 1939 , SB 2188 , SJR 36 , SJR 12 , SJR 37 , SJR 81 , SJR 50 , SCR 22 , SCR 12 , SCR 39 , SB 875 , SB 318 , SB 707 , SB 765 , SB 62 , SB 666 , SB 888 , SB 687 , SB 847 , SB 1248 , SB 504 , SB 857 , SB 305 , SB 296 , SB 284 , SB 1497 , SB 1498 , SB 241 , SB 304 , SB 621 , SB 1023 , SB 371 , SB 204 , SB 609 , SB 670 , SB 850 , SB 854 , SB 413 , SB 1346 , SB 1033 , SB 1220 , SB 1073 , SB 810 , SB 1539 , SB 447 , SB 406 , SB 985 , SB 965 , SB 1119 , SB 1505 , SB 1215 , SB 1302 , SB 856 , SB 583 , SB 673 , SB 681 , SB 1172 , SB 608 , SB 955 , SB 957 , SB 1021 , SB 1120 , SB 251 , SB 541 , SB 1737 , SB 266 , SB 1415 , SB 125 , SB 599 , SB 1330 , SB 53 , SB 1352 , SB 785 , SB 472 , SB 1450 , SB 1502 , SB 1566 , SB 414 , SB 1062 , SB 578 , SB 711 , SB 746 , SB 942 , SB 1404 , SB 1448 , SB 1738 , SB 108 , SB 8 , SB 507 , SB 533 , SB 689 , SB 1026 , SB 1349 , SB 1355 , SB 1433 , SB 1434 , SB 1596 , SB 1403 , SB 763 , SB 667 , SB 1059 , SB 617 , SB 1567 , SB 503 , SB 16 , SB 310 , SB 311 , SB 396 , SB 505 , SB 1209 , SB 1210 , SB 1470 , SB 264 , SB 1029 , SB 1185 , SB 1358 , SB 1364 , SB 1569 , SB 1376 , SB 1228 , SB 519 , SB 878 , SB 1350 , SB 462 , SB 1535 , SB 827 , SB 1585 , SB 207 , SB 1207 , SB 1619 , SB 1396 , SB 920 , SB 1484 , SB 1273 , SB 1741 , SB 7 , SB 927 , SB 1227 , SB 1229 , SB 1353 , SB 1366 , SB 1464 , SB 1709 , SB 1729 , SB 1733 , SB 1744 , SB 1772 , SB 1816 , SB 1841 , SB 2188 , SB 1147 , SB 879 , SB 1008 , SB 1536 , SB 2016 , SB 1453 , SB 1173 , SB 1163 , SB 996 , SB 27 , SB 568 , SB 1370 , SB 1321 , SB 1101 , SB 906 , SB 860 , SB 1563 , SB 993 , SB 693 , SB 1610 , SB 1537 , SB 836 , SB 1332 , SB 1307 , SB 963 , SB 493 , SB 922 , SB 984 , SB 1084 , SB 619 , SB 1098 , SB 1122 , SB 455 , SB 522 , SB 1057 , SB 1239 , SB 1254 , SB 1255 , SB 1259 , SB 1341 , SB 1664 , SB 1877 , SB 464 , SB 1277 , SB 32 , SB 732 , SB 660 , SB 731 , SB 921 , SB 268 , SB 1822 , SB 1188 , SB 1939 , SB 1589 , SB 397 , SB 1388 , SB 2230 , SB 1058 , SB 1036 , SB 1267 , SB 2112 , SB 1930 , SB 532 , SB 1035 , SB 2155 , SB 508 , SB 29 , SB 292 , SB 291 , SB 901 , SB 1333 , SB 1436 , SB 1494 , SB 964 , SB 779 , SB 1378 , SB 2312 , SB 1719 , SB 1386 , SB 287 , SB 2143 , SB 1245 , SB 261 , SB 1247 , SB 1948 , SB 2406 , SB 2407 , SB 1882 , SB 1197 , SB 1814 , SB 618 , SB 38 , SJR 37 , SB 108 , SB 207 , SB 251 , SB 472 , SB 503 , SB 599 , SB 621 , SB 856 , SB 1021 , SB 1185 , SB 1207 , SB 1330 , SB 1497 , SB 1535 , SB 1619 , SB 8 , SB 16 , SB 371 , SB 396 , SB 533 , SB 965 , SR 338 , SR 350 , SB 2076 , SB 1498 , SB 8 , SB 16 , SB 318 , SB 371 , SB 396 , SB 533 , SB 707 , SB 875 , SB 965 , SB 2076

Transcript Highlights:

• Rules are suspended. Question comes on suspension of Joint Rule 12.
• Rules are suspended. Question comes on suspension of Joint Rule 12.
• Rule 7A is suspended.
• Rules are suspended. Question comes on suspension of Joint Rule 12.
• Joint Rule 12 is suspended. The ayes have it. Joint Rule 12 is suspended. Mr.

Summary: The House began with routine ceremonial business, including adoption of resolutions congratulating Judy and Dick Jolin on their 50th wedding anniversary and commending the National Brain Tumor Society for Brain Tumor Awareness Month. The chamber also welcomed guests recognizing Apraxia Awareness Day. A gubernatorial message proposing injured-on-duty compensation for Chelmsford firefighter Nicholas Spinale was filed and referred to the Committee on Public Service. The House concurred in several Senate petitions referred under suspension of Joint Rule 12, including measures on consumer-connected devices, crumbling concrete relief for homeowners, and naming the Hianus Transportation Center. It also suspended Joint Rule 12 for a petition on reporting crimes to law enforcement, and for a quantum science tax incentive petition, which was then referred to the Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies. The Committee on Steering, Policy and Scheduling placed three House bills on the calendar: the Massachusetts Uniform Commercial Code, a Holyoke Charter change removing the treasurer as acting mayor, and a Kingston measure raising the maximum retirement age for special police officers to 70. The House then advanced and passed to be enacted three engrossed bills concerning Andover special town meetings, the Plymouth town charter, and an additional all-alcoholic-beverages license for Pembroke. It also passed to be engrossed bills on expanded small property tax abatements in Auburn, validation of the New Salem annual town election, and land acquisition/disposition in Falmouth. Finally, the House adopted an order to adjourn to meet the following Monday at 11 a.m., and then adjourned.