Transcript Highlights:

• expand financial aid increase student expand financial aid increase student support<00:01:12.720
• financial aid ensuring more students financial aid ensuring more students receive<00:01:53.159><
• diverse needs of Minnesota's student diverse needs of Minnesota's student population<00:02:09.360
• and universities and several student and universities and several student voices<00:04:25.919>
• The average State Grant is about $6,100 a student. The lowest-performing students in the state.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• That's just over 17% of all Minnesotan students.
• <00:04:08.120> that programming uh for the students that programming uh for the students that
• A lot of it depends on the area you are in.
• you<00:10:37.079> know uh per student uh depending on you know uh per student uh depending
• <00:13:07.560> best school boards have our students best school boards have our students best

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . student. student.
• . students. students.
• that student. that student.
• . student. student.
• students? students?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting began with approval of the October 15 minutes and a brief discussion of the committee’s report process, including the likelihood of a minority report and a deadline of November 1 for any separate report. Members then heard from Jod Adams of the New Hampshire Alliance for Public Charter Schools, who gave an overview of charter schools in the state: there are 37 charter schools, with 6,034 students last year, and schools are formed by certified teachers, parents, or nonprofit organizations. She said charter schools receive about $9,180 per pupil in adequacy aid and charter school grant funding, must fundraise for additional money, and are governed by their own boards under their charters and bylaws. Members asked about admissions, governance, transportation, and special education. Adams said charter schools are open enrollment, not geographically based, and may use lotteries when applications exceed available seats. She explained that districts and charter schools coordinate on special education and busing, with the sending district responsible for special education coordination and certain transportation obligations depending on where the student lives and attends. She also said charter schools are public schools, not selective, and that each school’s board operates independently of the local district school board, though some schools may have special arrangements. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on funding and statutory obligations. Adams and members discussed how special education aid follows the student, while charter schools do not receive some district-level aid such as catastrophic aid; free and reduced lunch funding and Title funds can go to charter schools. Members also raised concerns that some state laws and administrative rules do not clearly specify whether they apply to charter schools, creating confusion and, in some cases, causing districts to perform services such as dyslexia screening for charter students without additional funding. Adams agreed that clearer statutory language would help and noted that charter schools are subject to many state requirements, including testing and reporting, even though not every public-school rule applies to them.

Transcript Highlights:

• We hire student veterans. We have seven work-study students who have served in the military.
• Some of them are dependents as well.
• It's open to all students.
• So, that's how we would help that student.
• My question is, are we tracking dependents?

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:44:03.119> and students and future college students and students and future college students
• family the students and the students family the students and the students family should<00:59:22.079
• c><00:59:40.200> family depending on the students uh family depending on the students uh family
• student debt.
• student debt.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Higher Ed Finance and Policy Committee met to begin a budget overview for higher education. The chair noted quorum, committee member introductions, and that Democratic members were absent. The chair also said the Office of Higher Education would not be appearing for the planned budget deep dive, so nonpartisan fiscal staff would present instead. Ken Savory, the committee’s nonpartisan fiscal analyst, introduced a presentation on the higher education finance structure and timeline. Savory explained the state budget cycle, the difference between direct appropriations, statutory appropriations, open appropriations, base funding, tails, and one-time appropriations, and how those concepts apply to higher education. He described the committee’s usual budget areas: the Office of Higher Education, Minnesota State, the University of Minnesota, and the Mayo Foundation. He also reviewed historical spending charts showing higher education’s share of the general fund over time, the 2/3-1/3 funding policy in statute, and how tuition and general fund support have shifted. He noted that the FY 26-27 base for the Office of Higher Education area is about $725 million, including roughly $450 million for the State Grant program and about $99 million for North Star Promise. Members asked about comparing the current budget to earlier biennia, and staff responded that they would need to calculate the percentage difference. The chair then summarized prior budget growth, saying the previous budget was about $650 million over base and the current budget/tail was about $450 million over base. Staff also reviewed the 2024 omnibus higher education bill, including a roughly $5 million reduction to North Star Promise that was redirected to the Fostering Independence Grant program and a $500,000 appropriation for Minnesota State’s Kids on Campus program. The committee did not take any formal votes or actions during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• That was just for students who students.
• EFA student to participate. EFA student to participate.
• And our students do that. And our students do that.
• depending on programming evolution. depending on programming evolution.
• students students and<01:23:49.040> the<01:23:49.120> taxpayers.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Each year, the students come to the State House.
• dependent care tax credit, for every eligible taxpayer in Massachusetts.
• The cost of dependent care on top of that is 30%, which is crushing. That is my testimony.
• It boosts the child and family tax credit to $600 per dependent while allowing advance payments.
• Let's support our caregivers and the families and the communities who depend on them.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a public hearing focused largely on tax-credit proposals tied to children, families, caregivers, child care, health care workforce development, and public health. A major portion of the hearing concerned bills to expand the state earned income tax credit and child and family tax credit, including H. 3073/S. 1957 and S. 1975. Testimony from advocacy groups, legal services, tax assistance organizations, and health providers supported increasing the EITC match from 40% to 50% of the federal credit, expanding eligibility to immigrant and mixed-status ITIN filers, larger families, younger and older workers, and SSI recipients, and raising the child and family tax credit to $600 per child with inflation adjustments and possible advance payments. Witnesses said these changes would reduce poverty, improve health and educational outcomes, and help families meet basic expenses; committee members asked questions about ITIN filers and expressed support for the policy goals. The committee also heard extensive testimony on S. 1938/H. 3159, An Act Supporting Family Caregivers. Speakers described the scale of unpaid caregiving in Massachusetts and supported a package that would create a refundable tax credit, respite vouchers, workplace and housing protections, unemployment insurance access for those who leave work to care for relatives, a permanent advisory council, and a provision allowing spouses to be paid caregivers under MassHealth. Several witnesses shared personal caregiving experiences, and committee members responded favorably, noting the emotional and financial strain on caregivers and the importance of supporting them as Medicaid and long-term care systems face pressure. Additional bills discussed included H. 3174 on a child and dependent care tax credit, which was presented as a way to offset the high cost of child care; H. 3197/S. 2019 to improve the financial security of family child care providers through a tax credit; H. 3218/S. 1960 to create tax credits for health care preceptors to address workforce shortages; S. 2064 to establish a living organ donor tax credit; S. 2034 to promote healthy alternatives to sugary drinks through a tiered tax; H. 3015 to create a tax-return checkoff for the YMCA Youth and Government Program; and several public testimony ideas including vaccination, literacy, and grade-improvement tax credits. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the hearing, which ended after all testimony was heard.

Transcript Highlights:

• That student factor does work similar to tax law, where the first 150 students will receive a certain
• So these are like med students, pharmacy students, law students.
• A full-time equivalent student does not include a student enrolled in the medical doctorate program at
• students?
• Per FTE student—so full-time equivalent student means putting it into 15 credits for full-time, or 12

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• students.
• It would depend on the students in those districts. >> Correct. Yeah, I agree.
• <00:51:39.040> students<00:51:39.280> in<00:51:39.599> those It would depend
• on the students in those It would depend on the students in those districts. districts. districts.
• IEP students? IEP students?

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Education Assessment and Accountability Review Subcommittee received an Office of Education Accountability presentation on student discipline data in Kentucky schools for the 2024 school year. OEA said the study used Safe Schools data, educator and student surveys, site visits to 12 schools, and principal surveys. The report found that about 1 in 10 schools have major behavior-related challenges and up to one-third have at least moderate challenges, with the most common concerns varying by level: high schools cited vapes, cell phone misuse, apathy, and tardiness; middle schools cited apathy, vapes, and cell phone misuse; and elementary schools reported more extreme classroom behaviors such as throwing objects, overturning furniture, and screaming. OEA also noted that 14% of students had at least one behavior event in 2024, but repeated events were rare, and event rates alone do not reliably measure the severity of behavior problems in a school or district. The presentation emphasized that many disciplinary consequences do not align consistently with statutes or local expectations. OEA said law violations made up 19% of more than 250,000 recorded behavior events, while most were board violations, and that some serious incidents resulted in minimal consequences. The report highlighted concerns about weapons, threats, and assaults: only 9.2% of weapon events led to expulsion or alternative placement, few threats resulted in those outcomes, and fewer than 10% of assaults led to expulsion or alternative placement, including some first-degree assaults. OEA also said the Safe Schools data do not identify victims, limiting analysis of assaults on staff or students, and recommended clearer statutory definitions and better data reporting. A major theme was the difficulty schools face in addressing chronic disruption and severe behavior while complying with federal protections for students with disabilities. OEA said principals reported the biggest challenges were federal limits on disciplinary removals and a lack of alternative placement options. The report described variation among districts in how they implement federal requirements, with some administrators discouraging alternative placements or avoiding discipline because of perceived legal risks. Site visits found that many schools lacked chronic-disruption policies, and teachers often reported frustration with minimal consequences and repeated classroom removals. OEA recommended that KDE collect more information from educators, identify promising practices for alternative instructional settings, and develop clearer guidance and training. In discussion, committee members said the findings showed reporting gaps and resource strains, and OEA staff clarified that some underreporting reflects local discretion, while law violations should still be reported.

Transcript Highlights:

• on how many students applied.
• on how many students applied.
• Some students automatically apply, or some students automatically are eligible, yes. Mr.
• It's a few hundred students. And so But the numbers are low. It's a few hundred students.
• With the direct certification students, would we have enough students there that would qualify for direct

Summary: The Legislative Management Committee met to address the fiscal impact of Initiated Constitutional Measure No. 3, which would require public schools, public school districts, and public charter schools to provide breakfast and lunch at no cost to students and allow reimbursement from the state, with implementation beginning in the 2027-28 school year. The committee first filled a vacancy created by Representative Jared Hagert’s resignation by appointing Representative Berg to the committee. Legislative Council and DPI staff explained the measure’s requirements, including federal reimbursement participation, possible use of the legacy earnings fund if other funding is unavailable, and the authority of the Legislature and superintendent of public instruction to clarify implementation details. Linnell Johnson of DPI testified that the estimated fiscal impact for the 2027-2029 biennium is between $124 million and $134 million, based on participation assumptions, federal reimbursement rates, and the extent to which schools continue to collect applications or use community eligibility/provision 2 options. She also noted a likely additional administrative cost of about $300,000 for DPI to operate the program. Members asked about school participation, Title I implications, special diets, staffing, and whether the measure could reduce federal reimbursements if families stop applying. Johnson said the estimate is uncertain and could be higher if applications decline, but that schools would still have incentives to participate in federal programs because of reimbursement and other funding ties. After discussion, the committee adopted a motion to report a fiscal impact range of $124,300,000 to $134,300,000 per biennium to the Secretary of State. The committee then received an informational update from Legislative Council attorney Dustin Richard on the ongoing redistricting litigation. He explained that the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Eighth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Louisiana v. Callais, while the district court-imposed map remains in effect for now. No action was taken on that update, and the meeting adjourned after members noted minutes from the prior meeting were not yet available for approval.

Transcript Highlights:

• around student loans.
• who are here on student visas.
• students about their eligibility.
• I don't blame that on the student.
• Somehow, out of those 100,000 students, these 2,000, Students, somehow out of those 100,000 students,

Summary: The joint Sunset Review Oversight Hearing focused on the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) and its reauthorization, operations, enforcement, fiscal condition, and student protections. Committee leaders and DCA officials praised the Bureau’s recent improvements in data systems, licensing, inspections, and enforcement, while noting the Bureau’s role has become more important as federal higher education oversight weakens. Bureau Chief Deborah Cochran said the agency has met its inspection mandate for the first time since the law was enacted, increased citations and disciplinary actions, reduced pending complaints, and used data tools to identify risk and monitor institutions more effectively. A major portion of the hearing centered on student harm, especially school closures, transcript access, predatory recruiting, and the Student Tuition Recovery Fund (STRF). Members asked how the Bureau protects students when schools close, whether bad actors can reopen under new entities, and whether enforcement tools are strong enough. Cochran said the Bureau can cite, fine, place schools on probation, revoke licenses, and order refunds, but it is seeking new authority to deny approval to operators who previously closed schools improperly or failed to refund students. She also said the Bureau is tracking ownership data and is concerned about institutions targeting immigrant and visa students. On STRF, Cochran explained that the fund is currently healthy, assessments are at zero because the balance is above the statutory target, and the Bureau paid about 1,100 claims totaling roughly $17 million over the last four years. Several members questioned the fairness of the assessment structure and discussed alternatives such as surety bonds, but the Bureau said STRF is working well and no change is needed at this time. Fee increases and the Bureau’s structural deficit were another major topic. Cochran said the Bureau reduced costs by eliminating positions, streamlining inspections, improving data analysis, and shifting some student-relief costs to STRF, but that legislative action is still needed to address the deficit. She said the proposed fees were based on workload analyses and that application fees generally match service costs, while annual fees are designed to cover most of the Bureau’s revenue needs. Some members and stakeholders criticized the proposed increases as too high, especially for out-of-state registration and campus fees, while others argued the Bureau needs sufficient resources to regulate effectively. Public commenters from private schools, Northeastern University, San Joaquin Valley College/Carrington College, and TICAS generally supported the Bureau’s mission and reauthorization, but urged changes such as risk-based oversight, better transcript protections, stronger limits on repeated provisional approvals, and more targeted fee and STRF reforms. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with no formal action beyond discussion and receipt of testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:06:44.160> on federal reimbursement rates depending on federal reimbursement rates depending
• who those families or student who those families or student participants<00:15:59.680> are
• <00:27:47.159> so provided meals to to all students so provided meals to to all students so
• But as you can see, I mean, the numbers of students, or the student count, that's gone up, it's gone
• I'm thinking of per-student spending, because this is all per student, right?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Department of Education’s Bureau of Wellness and Nutrition presented an overview of the school meal and child nutrition programs it administers, including the National School Lunch Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), After School Snack Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Program, and Special Milk Program. Staff explained which programs are federally funded through USDA, which have state matching funds, and how reimbursement rates are set for different programs and fiscal years. They also walked the committee through a packet showing reimbursement tables, state and federal funding totals, and eligibility data. Members focused much of their questioning on how state and federal reimbursements work for lunch and breakfast, why lunch is shown as a state match while breakfast has meal-based breakdowns, and how the department allocates funds in the budget. The department explained that lunch uses a set state match tied to federal requirements, while breakfast reimbursement is based on meals served. They also reviewed FY 22-24 funding trends, noting higher federal spending during COVID-era waivers and lower amounts as those waivers ended. A committee member asked for the data in Excel and the department agreed to provide it. The discussion also covered summer meal programs and the distinction between the Summer Food Service Program and Summer EBT. Staff explained that SFSP provides meals at approved open or closed sites, while Summer EBT is a separate DHHS-run benefit program that provides funds to families; the two programs coordinate through data sharing but are not the same. Members also discussed CEP, with staff explaining that New Hampshire currently has three schools participating, that the qualifying threshold was reduced from 40% to 25% identified students, and that districts must cover the non-federal share with non-federal funds. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Again, depending on that caseload of that student, and each student it could be more or less paperwork
• So that caseload varies so much depending on that student.
• So what happened to a student? Was that student expelled? No. The student wasn't expelled.
• So what happened to a student? Was that student expelled? No. The student wasn't expelled. No.
• For students with disabilities, that promise depends heavily on paraeducators.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met to discuss special education funding and retention, beginning with approval of the prior meeting minutes and then hearing a presentation from North Dakota United on a statewide special education survey and retention rubric. Presenters described how the rubric and survey were developed from special educator input around four domains: paperwork and due process support, workload, student and staff safety, and paraprofessional management. They reported high levels of stress and burnout, including increased workload, difficulty taking prep and lunch time, concerns about mental health, and widespread difficulty filling special education positions. Committee members questioned the survey’s lack of a general-education comparison group, the interpretation of terms like “rarely” and “sometimes,” and whether results could be broken down further by district size, unit, or disability area. The survey results showed the weakest area was workload, with respondents reporting caseloads increasing without corresponding adjustments, little additional support or compensation when workloads rise, and few negotiated-agreement protections. Paperwork and due process also scored poorly, with many teachers saying they rarely receive dedicated time during the duty day, often work outside contract hours without compensation, and take work home on evenings and weekends. Student and staff safety scored somewhat better but still showed gaps in crisis follow-up, notification about violent behavior, protective gear, and leave options after incidents. Paraprofessional management also drew concern, especially low pay, insufficient staffing, limited administrative support, and the burden placed on teachers to supervise and train paras. Several teachers then testified directly about the practical impact of these issues. One special education teacher described the job as combining instruction, legal compliance, and paraprofessional supervision, often requiring work beyond contracted hours and contributing to burnout and turnover. Another testified that special education case managers are effectively doing three full-time jobs and that the paperwork and caseload demands are a major reason people avoid or leave the field. Committee members discussed whether the problems are primarily local or state-level, whether more funding would solve them, and whether changes to the funding formula or weighting for high-cost students might be needed. No formal vote or action was taken beyond a recess and return to order for the next presentation, which continued the discussion of possible special education study objectives and potential policy directions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, it depends, I think, how we prioritize.
• Um, it depends, I think, how we prioritize.
• Um, it depends, I think, how we prioritize.
• <00:20:16.240> or Pathways how do we get students or Pathways how do we get students or recent
• It really depends on what kind of resources we'll be putting in the bill.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Labor and Technology heard several labor and personnel measures. Senate Bill 1567 would require the Department of Human Resources Development to conduct a comprehensive review of the executive branch classification and compensation system and allow it to contract with a third party outside normal procurement rules. Director Brana Hashimoto testified in support, saying the state has more than 1,400 classes of work and limited staff to keep the system current; she said outside vendor help and market data are needed to update class specifications, minimum qualifications, and pay structures. She noted the project scope and timeline would depend on funding, and said the governor had approved about $1 million for the effort. Members asked about vendor scope, comparisons to the private sector and other public employers, consolidation of obsolete classes, and whether the exemption from procurement rules would speed the work. The committee also heard Senate Bill 326 on defense of state employees, with testimony in support from HGEA, the Hawaii State AFL-CIO, and the Hawaii State Teachers Association. Senate Bill 337 would expand the pool of interest arbitrators used in collective bargaining disputes by allowing the Hawaii Labor Relations Board to request a list from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and to use arbitrators from both FMCS and the American Arbitration Association; HGEA supported the bill, saying the broader pool would improve selection and address communication issues. Senate Bill 1233 would create a State Internship and Workforce Development Program within DeHerd. The University of Hawaiʻi, HGEA, the Hawaii Primary Care Association, and the Chamber of Commerce supported it. DeHerd said the program could help place interns into vacancies and convert them to civil service jobs, but said it would need about five FTE and roughly $330,000 in salaries to administer a program serving about 50 to 75 interns at a time; members questioned whether the positions could be filled and whether the program could proceed without added resources. The committee then heard Senate Bill 1359, which would increase the employer-based composite monthly contribution to the Hawaii EUTF Benefits Trust Fund beginning in January 2026 and then tie future increases to Medicare Part B premium changes with a lag. The EUTF administrator testified, and a member noted the measure resembled a bill that had died in conference the prior year. Senate Bill 1454 would give the Labor and Industrial Relations director authority to issue wage payment violation orders, establish penalties and appeals, and broaden the definition of wage; the department supported it, explaining it would align procedures under chapter 387 with existing chapter 388 enforcement and make investigations easier. Finally, the committee moved through a series of collective bargaining cost-item bills for various bargaining units and related entities, with testimony generally in support from Budget and Finance, HGEA, UH, HHSC, UPW, and other unions and associations. One amendment request was to include bargaining units 1 and 10 in the temporary hazard pay funding bill, and the Hawaii Fire Fighters Association noted its airport firefighters unit was still in arbitration and would provide final numbers later.

Transcript Highlights:

• So for an ABC student, roughly the cost per student that is paid is $5,105. ...and my understanding of
• Yet our teacher-to-student ratio is far different, especially if we look at infant care.
• Or will it be used in any way to reduce the number of students?
• I would imagine it would be variable, depending on the school district... ...depending on the school
• Depends. It depends on their age and it depends on which programs they qualify for, but perhaps.

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The committee met in a workshop-style discussion with Arkansas Department of Education early childhood officials to review the state’s early learning programs, especially ABC and SRA/CCDF, and to consider long-term sustainability, access, and quality. Officials said ABC funding was flat at $11 million from 2009-2010 until a $3 million increase in 2018, while CCDF/SRA funding is about $137 million. They reported ABC serves about 23,000 children, SRA about 14,871, and the SRA wait list has grown to 2,971 children, with breakdowns by age provided during the meeting. They also said the current ABC per-child cost is about $5,105, compared with roughly $8,000 in K-12, and that a new market-rate/cost-of-care study is due because the last one was about three years ago. Members raised concerns about rural and urban access, provider deserts, school-based versus community-based slots, and whether the state should expand or rebalance funding to better support infant-toddler care and mixed delivery. Officials said they are working on identifying gaps, moving slots where possible, and using local leads and quality measures such as CLASS observations to improve kindergarten readiness. They also discussed the transition of federal pre-K funding ending at the end of June, with children either moving into ABC or requalifying for SRA, but without grandfathering beyond bypassing the wait list if already enrolled. A major topic was the impact of new co-pays and funding reductions on families and providers. Officials said the state had to make changes to preserve the programs, and that paying based on enrollment rather than allocated slots saved about $576,000. They also said eight providers cited funding as the reason for closing, while 26 new providers were added under the new rates. Members questioned dual enrollment in home visiting/HIPPY and ABC, and officials said about 1,200 children are dually enrolled, with a possible savings of about $2.4 million if that practice were limited, though members cautioned about unintended consequences for children with developmental needs. The meeting ended with agreement to continue regular updates and further work on simplifying and stabilizing the early childhood system.

Transcript Highlights:

• . that Louisiana Rehabilitation Services can fulfill this mission for the students and families who depend
• This student did this. This student took my stuff. This student threw something at me.
• She was terrified that the student would run into the student again.
• K-3 and K-4 students.
• student council.

Summary: The committee met for public testimony on the Finance budget, with the main discussion focused first on funding for disability services and then on the LA GATOR scholarship program. Several individuals testified in support of fully funding Families Helping Families and Louisiana Rehabilitation Services (LRS), describing how advocacy, transition services, and direct support workers help people with disabilities access education, employment, and independent living. Witnesses urged the committee to preserve or increase state general funds to draw down federal matching dollars, and provider groups said current reimbursement rates and staffing shortages are leaving agencies in deficit, creating waitlists, overtime costs, and difficulty retaining workers. Committee members thanked the speakers and noted that the testimony would be used to compare the governor’s, House, and remaining budget requests. The committee then heard extensive testimony in support of increasing funding for the LA GATOR scholarship program. Supporters included policy groups, school leaders, parents, and students who argued that the program expands educational choice, helps low-income and special-needs students find schools that fit their needs, and should be fully funded at the level of demonstrated demand. Speakers from Catholic and Christian schools said GATOR funding had helped students thrive academically and spiritually, but that shortfalls left many eligible students without awards, hurt kindergarten enrollment, and forced schools to raise private donations to cover gaps. Several witnesses emphasized that the program is not a zero-sum attack on public schools, but a way to let education dollars follow students. A few committee questions focused on the fiscal impact and on whether choice programs improve outcomes without harming public schools. Testimony cited enrollment growth, parent demand, and data from other states to argue that school choice can improve student and parent outcomes and may also strengthen traditional public schools through competition. No votes or formal actions were taken during the public testimony portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• It depends on the nature of the request.
• So it it depends. It depends on it? Yes. So it it depends.
• It depends.
• >> Depends on who the hiring authority is.
• >> Depends on who the hiring authority is.

Bills: SB1, SB4, SB6, SB9, SB16, SB17, SB20, SB22, SB28, SB29, SB36, SB41, SB45, SB77, SB85, SB87, SB96, SB98, SB110, SB126, SB139, SB143, SB164, SB167, SB171, SB186, SB188, SB195, SB197, SB198, SB204, SB205, SB206, SB207, SB209, SB210, SB211, SB217, SB219, SB220, SB225, SB231, SB237, SB238, SB241, SB244, SB246, SB247, SB272, SB294, SB315, SB346, SB364, SB366, SB367, SB386, SB392, SB403, SB415, SB427, SB431, SB437, SB457, SB459, SB469, SB471, SB478, SB484, SB489, SB502, SB503, SB507, SB508, SB510, SB516, SB517, SB518, SB519, SB521, SB535, SB543, SB550, SB564, SB568, SB570, SB575, SB577, SB578, SB590, SB607, SB616, SB621, SB634, SB644, SB647, SB649, SB652, SB655, SB656, SB663

Keywords: agricultural lands, foreign ownership, state agriculture policy, real estate regulation, land conservation, SB4, Royal Mausoleum, Mauna Ala, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, OHA, Department of Land and Natural Resources, DLNR, stewardship, Hawaiian affairs, cemetery, burial site, ancestral remains, cultural preservation, state land management, agency transfer

Transcript Highlights:

• to 400 to 500 students.
• This student did this. This student took my stuff. This student threw something at me.
• This year he was student of the year. This year he was student of the year.
• K-3 and K-4 students.
• student council.

Keywords: 974, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So there are a lot of students coming to law school and a lot of students with interest in public service
• We use financial incentives to pull students—I'm sorry.
• opportunities for those 1L students.
• opportunities for those 1L students.
• It really depends on where the individual is housed.

Summary: The work session began with a discussion of expanding opportunities in the legal profession, especially in response to shortages of lawyers in rural Washington and in public service roles. Washington State Bar Executive Director Tara Nevitt described a slowly growing but aging attorney population, noted that younger attorneys have declined, and outlined efforts such as supervised practice pathways to bar admission, reduced admission-by-motion experience requirements, expanded law clerk capacity, rural job fairs and grants, and a pilot program allowing innovative legal service delivery models. Members asked about bar passage score changes, loan repayment assistance, and the former Limited License Legal Technician program; Nevitt said the bar is monitoring other states and remains in dialogue with the court about paraprofessional licensing. Law school representatives from UW, Seattle University, and Gonzaga emphasized public service pipelines, financial barriers, and rural legal deserts, citing LRAPs, scholarships, stipends, clinics, and hybrid or regional programs designed to recruit and retain students in Washington. Seattle U highlighted its FlexJD and hybrid hub partnerships in underserved areas, while Gonzaga and UW reported substantial shares of graduates entering public service, though most still cluster in urban regions. The committee also heard from the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys and the Office of Public Defense, both of which described severe recruitment and retention problems in rural counties, with vacancies, low applicant pools, and the need for higher salaries, housing help, internships, and loan support. The Office of Public Defense said its internship and fellowship program, created by SB 5780, has already placed interns in rural counties and produced some commitments to return after graduation. The Washington State Bar’s law clerk program was also presented as a pathway that helps people train locally and remain in their communities, including by supporting succession for aging solo practitioners. The committee then shifted to family law and guardianship issues. On Title 26 guardian ad litem practice, presenters from Northwest Justice Project and private family law practice said GALs can play an important role but that training, oversight, and consistency remain major concerns, especially in domestic violence cases. They described problems such as inadequate training, bias, inconsistent recommendations, high fees, and lack of accountability, and suggested stronger, standardized training, more use of mental health professionals for custody evaluations, and better oversight mechanisms. Members asked about county practices, including rotation systems for GAL appointments and whether King County’s family court assessors provide a useful model. The discussion then moved to minor guardianships under the Uniform Guardianship Act. A Superior Court judge said the 2021 changes increased the need for court visitors and appointed counsel, but courts are struggling to find qualified attorneys and visitors, especially in rural areas. A former commissioner said most of the bill under discussion was technical cleanup to align prior amendments, though it would add some fiscal burdens. Administrative Office of the Courts staff reported that the statewide reimbursement program for UGA implementation has repeatedly run out of money earlier each year, with minor guardianship costs making up most of the expense. The Office of Public Guardianship then described rapid growth in demand for adult guardianship and less restrictive alternatives, noting that referrals and caseloads have risen sharply, but that the office is constrained by a shortage of certified professional guardians and low compensation levels. Finally, the committee began an update on Blake implementation from the Office of Civil Legal Aid, which funds civil legal services related to the decision, before the transcript cut off.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're very proud of our outcomes for students in all majors, and whether the student is a first-gen student
• The student is a first-gen student or a fourth-gen student or somewhere in between.
• Scholastica students are Minnesota State Grant recipients and depend on this aid to finance our education
• Scholastica students are Minnesota State Grant recipients and depend on this aid to finance our education
• Scholastica students are Minnesota State Grant recipients and depend on this aid to finance our education

Keywords: 1183, house