Transcript Highlights:

• professional judgment panels, and that if we did, we would have robust panels for educator, employer, stakeholder
• , and public input, and more prototype schools.
• we would have research and preparation that conducts surveys, have listening sessions, convene stakeholder
• meetings, and gather input.

Keywords: 907, all

Transcript Highlights:

• professional judgment panels, and that if we did, we would have robust panels for educator, employer, stakeholder
• , and public input, and more prototype schools.
• , we would have research and preparation that conduct surveys, have listening sessions, convene stakeholder
• meetings, and gather input.

Summary: The Senate convened with the Pledge of Allegiance and an invocation by Senator Starr, followed by several courtesies recognizing Pride Month, a staff birthday, and later a retirement and a community celebration. Senator Robinson then used remonstrances to warn against expanding surveillance through school bus camera systems, arguing that leaked plans from a vendor could create commercial databases of drivers’ movements and erode privacy. The main business was confirmation of numerous gubernatorial appointments and reappointments to boards and commissions. Senators debated the process at length, with several minority members objecting that the volume of nominees, limited hearing time, and lack of transparency made meaningful advice-and-consent review difficult. Supporters responded that the nominees were qualified public servants and that the Senate should work with the Governor’s office on reforms. The Senate first confirmed a large block of appointments, then confirmed two Sustainability Board appointees, and later confirmed three Quality Education Commission appointees after extended debate. The Quality Education Commission nominations drew the most substantive policy discussion. Opponents argued the commission needs more technical research expertise and broader representation, while supporters emphasized the nominees’ education experience and direct knowledge of Oregon schools. Several senators described Oregon’s education system as in crisis, citing low reading and math proficiency, chronic absenteeism, and the need for urgent reform of the Quality Education Model and school funding. The Senate also received a proposed rule amendment creating an official Senate seal, which was distributed and held on the table, and the chamber adjourned without further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Follow up, and I was just curious Was there input in terms of that particular language, and if so, who
• provided that input?
• President, would you be open to, you know, the possibility that there should be, let's say, a Stakeholder
• So, I think the goal here is that stakeholder engagement, but not just from the words on the paper, but

Bills: HB1427, SB1403, SB1448, SB1489, SB1546, SB1557, SB1614, SB1377, SB1990, SB1439, SB1630, SB1632, SB1696, SB1796, SB1824, SB1362, SB1849, SB2066, SB2071, SB2104, SB933, SB1633, SB1224, SB1246, SB1280, SB1303, SB1346

Keywords: tax credit, clean-burning fuel, hydrogen fuel cells, compressed natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, environmental impact, vehicle modification, renewable energy, job incentives, tax rebates, Oklahoma Quality Jobs Program, employment growth, wage requirements, Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, consumer protection, unfair trade practices, deceptive practices, exemptions, statutory exemptions, Corporation Commission

Transcript Highlights:

• remaining funding to be discussed between the administration, the Legislature, and interested stakeholders
• the delay is concerning given the urgent need for the state to send the appropriate signals to stakeholders
• continued use of the budget process to make fundamental changes to CEQA without adequate time for public input
• continued use of the budget process to make fundamental changes to CEQA without adequate time for public input

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee hearing focused on the governor’s May Revision, especially the proposed extension of the cap-and-trade program to 2045 as “cap-and-invest,” the related greenhouse gas reduction fund (GGRF) spending framework, and several trailer bill proposals. Department of Finance staff outlined budget solutions including a $1.5 billion annual General Fund-to-GGRF shift for Cal Fire that would grow to $1.9 billion by 2029-30, continued support for high-speed rail, climate bond implementation, and various environmental and water-related statutory changes. The administration also described proposals affecting the Delta Conveyance Project, water quality planning, groundwater bulletin timing, Exide cleanup funding, and other agency-specific items, though the chair repeatedly asked staff to keep the presentation high-level and save details for the next hearing. Members from both parties raised strong concerns about the cap-and-invest proposal, arguing that it could reduce or displace funding for transit, affordable housing, active transportation, wildfire prevention, zero-emission vehicles, and other previously committed programs. Several members questioned whether the administration was effectively shifting essential ongoing services like Cal Fire onto a temporary carbon market fund, how the General Fund backstop would work if auction revenues fall short, and whether the proposal would leave enough money for continuous appropriations and future awards. Members also criticized the inclusion of cap-and-invest reauthorization in the budget process and asked for clearer information on the impact to high-speed rail, transit, and other GGRF priorities. The Delta Conveyance Project and related trailer bill language drew significant opposition from members and public commenters, who argued the proposal would fast-track the project, weaken CEQA-related review, and authorize revenue bond financing without sufficient legislative oversight. Public testimony also included support for maintaining or expanding funding for transit, affordable housing, AB 617 community air protection, offshore wind infrastructure, and ignition interlock programs, while environmental and community groups opposed cuts to wildfire prevention, housing, and school climate-related programs. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, and the chair said the committee would continue the discussion and receive more detailed responses at the follow-up hearing on Tuesday.

Transcript Highlights:

• It can't be just one stakeholder group speaking the loudest or represented the most.
• These are councils that have all stakeholder representatives in those councils.
• And it's part of every stakeholder, not just educators. Thank you.
• With almost 80% of our stakeholders sharing their voice, we cannot ignore what they're asking us to do
• With almost 80% of our stakeholders sharing their voice, we cannot ignore what they're asking us to do

Summary: The joint informational and oversight hearing focused on community schools in California, with members emphasizing that the purpose was to examine effectiveness, implementation, and sustainability rather than the Governor’s budget proposal. The California Department of Education described the California Community Schools Partnership Program, created in 2021 and funded with more than $4 billion, including planning, implementation, extension, and county coordination grants. Officials said nearly 2,500 schools are participating and highlighted the statewide technical assistance structure, including the State Transformational Assistance Center, eight regional centers, county offices, and CDE support. Researchers from the Learning Policy Institute and UCLA presented early findings and implementation data. LPI reported reductions in chronic absenteeism and suspensions, along with gains in math and English language arts, with especially large benefits for Black students and other historically underserved groups. UCLA described the Annual Progress Report as a statewide improvement tool showing growth in capacity-building, shared decision-making, whole-child supports, and continuous improvement. Members asked about how the reports measure outcomes, how to interpret outliers, and how to distinguish community schools effects from other concurrent initiatives; presenters said matched comparison methods and deeper case-study work are being used, with additional statewide findings expected in June. Panelists from Oakland Unified, LAUSD/UTLA, San Diego Unified, and advocacy organizations described key elements of success: integrated student supports, strong family and student engagement, collaborative leadership, community partnerships, and school-site decision-making. They gave examples such as wellness centers, dual enrollment, student senates, parent leadership, and community campaigns that built trust and increased participation. Members also raised concerns about sustainability, implementation fidelity, and whether community schools improve participation in LCAP processes. Presenters said major barriers include unclear early guidance, the need for a mindset shift away from top-down models, and uncertainty about long-term funding for coordinators and other staff. The panel’s recommendations centered on stable ongoing funding, stronger technical assistance, shared governance, and embedding community schools practices into district and county systems.

Transcript Highlights:

• I hope I have demonstrated my commitment to each and every one of you to continue to work with stakeholders
• Stakeholders, and I do agree that the study, the research.
• To any stakeholders who have crossed the line, I ask that you stop and move forward.
• author for her dedication and hard work in ensuring that this bill is well thought out, drawing from input
• Collaboration with stakeholders on both sides of the measure.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill removes local input entirely in favor of development interests.
• It also takes away the ability of cities to welcome engagement through robust community input.
• I know there's a number of stakeholders.
• We've been having regular meetings with stakeholders to continue doing that.
• <01:00:12.119> to regular meetings with stakeholders to regular meetings with stakeholders

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 1987, the Minnesota Starter Home Act, and first adopted the A1 author’s amendment, which made minor cleanup changes, removed sections two and three, adjusted ADU language, and tweaked density language. The bill authors described the measure as a bipartisan effort to address Minnesota’s housing shortage by allowing more starter homes, duplexes, townhomes, and accessory dwelling units, while also limiting some local zoning barriers and preserving city protections in certain sensitive areas. They emphasized that the state has a large housing gap, rising home prices, and that the bill is intended as one part of a broader housing package. Supportive testimony came from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Housing First Minnesota, Habitat for Humanity, AARP Minnesota, and Americans for Prosperity. These witnesses argued that workforce and starter-home shortages are hurting families, employers, and economic growth; that restrictive zoning and lengthy approval processes raise costs; and that more middle housing and ADUs would expand options for older adults, caregivers, working families, and people seeking homeownership. Several supporters said the bill would reduce regulatory barriers, lower development costs, and help communities add needed housing supply. Opposition or cautionary testimony came from city and municipal representatives, including officials from Cambridge, Eagan, and Mankato, as well as the League of Minnesota Cities and related groups. They argued that local governments already are approving substantial housing growth and need flexibility to manage zoning, parking, infrastructure, stormwater, and community input. They warned the bill could weaken local control, remove practical standards, and create unintended impacts such as more rental conversion in some neighborhoods or development without adequate infrastructure. No final vote on the bill itself was shown in the transcript beyond adoption of the A1 amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• AB 1976 does not eliminate public input. It draws a reasonable line.
• We want the community input going into that process, and then we want the traffic experts to actually
• You know, I think the way that I see this bill is really encouraging a front-loading of community input
• And what we're hoping is to say is that communities need to do that public input earlier in the process
• At the 0%, 30%, and 60% design phases, community input is really critical to shape things like where

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Moving it up front and engaging the stakeholders to take the right action.
• auto-populate, and it creates errors on inputs.
• Appreciate your input, Mr. Kaiser. Jackie. Thank you. Thank you so much.
• We appreciate your input. It's good to see you again. You too, thank you.
• I appreciate all the input. That is all that we have registered. Oh, wait, we do have one more.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The task force was a campus-wide effort involving town halls with stakeholders across campus, including
• and accessibility, accelerate and lift the work of our employees to those tasks that require human input
• Require human input and translate our learnings, both positive and negative, to support everyone in the
• really be a part of the human component of AI and really emphasizing the human component—that the input
• And again, this is a lift, because all this information does have to get input into the system for it

Summary: The committee spent much of the meeting hearing presentations on student mental health supports at Central Washington University, Washington State University, the University of Washington, and the State Board of Community and Technical Colleges. CWU described high levels of student distress, loneliness, anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and basic-needs insecurity, along with a campus-wide holistic well-being model that includes behavioral intervention teams, emergency aid, peer outreach, community partnerships, and a collegiate recovery community. WSU emphasized loneliness, common presenting concerns such as anxiety, depression, PTSD, and relationship distress, and the role of housing and residence life, resident advisors, living-learning communities, and coordinated crisis response in identifying and supporting students. UW highlighted prevention and support programs through LiveWell, including alcohol and other drug consultations, confidential advocacy, suicide intervention, student needs navigation, peer health educators, and peer wellness coaches. The community and technical college system reported persistent access barriers, especially for students ages 18 to 24 and those facing housing or food insecurity, and said the legislature-funded mental health pilot at four colleges expanded counseling access, telehealth, and referral pathways, while broader system efforts focus on awareness, telehealth, basic-needs supports, and workforce training in behavioral health fields. Members asked each panel how they gather student feedback, and the institutions said they use surveys, evaluations, and ongoing outreach to students in services. Questions also focused on substance-use and recovery resources, Greek life outreach, and whether colleges have enough licensed mental health staff versus academic advisors; the community college board said not all colleges have licensed mental health providers on staff, and some rely on community contracts or telehealth. The committee also discussed whether counseling services are increasing because of post-pandemic effects or because students are more willing to seek help, with presenters saying both factors likely play a role. The committee then shifted to artificial intelligence in higher education. Washington State University, the University of Washington, Western Washington University, and the community and technical college system described campus AI task forces, governance structures, and efforts to set policies for students, faculty, and staff. Presenters said institutions are requiring course-level AI use statements, promoting ethical and transparent use, expanding access to approved tools such as Microsoft Copilot, and using AI for teaching, research, advising, and administrative support while guarding privacy, equity, and academic integrity. Members raised concerns about deepfakes, bias, student monitoring, and whether AI should be used to screen applications or evaluate student work; presenters said human review remains essential and that some institutions prohibit AI use in hiring or admissions screening. The final presentation, from OSPI, described the statewide rollout of the School Links high school and beyond plan platform under 2023 legislation, saying it will standardize career and college planning across K-12, provide better data and student guidance, and connect students to postsecondary pathways and employers; OSPI said the rollout is underway but current funding only extends through June 30, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to thank the members of the committee and staff and stakeholders who have since provided thoughtful
• the original proposal, and I appreciate Chairman Schwertner asking for us to kind of give him some inputs
• natural gas, encounters supply or cost difficulties, so does Dow Chemical, because that is one of their inputs
• We received a lot of input from members on the dais as well as from stakeholders, but the time is ticking
• handwritten slide over the dais comments that he just got me, and we are simulating continued options and input

Bills: HB132, HB 11, HB14, HB132, HB1584, HB1606, HB5061, HB 1041, HB2286

Keywords: nuclear energy, Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, energy policy, regulation repeal, state energy strategy, licensing, reciprocity, regulation, Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, interstate agreements, advanced reactors, energy security, grant programs, HB 132, Texas Government Code Chapter 418, Public Information Act, confidential records, homeland security, foreign adversary, terrorism

Summary: The committee first took up pending business and quickly reported several measures favorably, including HB 12, SB 1361, SB 1705, SB 1749, SB 1897, SB 2344, SB 2566, HB 3809, and HB 4215, with most sent to the Local and Uncontested Calendar. HB 12’s substitute clarified a limited midterm review of regulatory agencies tied to Sunset Commission recommendations. SB 2696’s substitute changed med spa regulation from a license to a certificate, with training instead of an exam, plus background checks, continuing education, and two-year renewals. HB 3809 dealt with battery energy storage decommissioning and recycling, and HB 4215 was reported without a substitute. SB 1978, concerning interconnection of electric facilities in ERCOT and federal jurisdiction concerns, was reported out on a 5-3 vote after debate, but then the chair later announced the bill was withdrawn and left pending subject to the call of the chair. HB 1899 was also reported favorably, with one nay. A major portion of the meeting focused on HB 14, the advanced nuclear energy bill. Senator Schwertner described it as creating a Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, a nuclear permitting coordinator, a development fund, a completion grant program, and a workforce development program. Testimony was sharply divided. Supporters, including representatives from Fermi America, Dow/X-energy, CPS Energy, Paragon Energy Solutions, Bridge to Nuclear, Aalo Atomics, and the Texas Association of Business, argued that Texas should lead in advanced nuclear, citing future baseload demand, data centers, industrial power needs, supply-chain development, and long-term energy diversification. Opponents, including Public Citizen, Texas Nuclear Watchdogs, Sierra Club, and individual citizens, argued the bill would subsidize unproven, expensive technology, create grants rather than loans, and expose taxpayers to major risk while doing little to meet near-term energy needs. Several members questioned whether the state should fund projects that may not produce grid power for years, and whether the bill’s grant structure and new office were justified. The committee also heard HB 5061, which Senator Schwertner said would prohibit unethical surveillance and misuse of confidential information by state contractors, create a confidential reporting system through the State Auditor’s Office, authorize Texas Rangers investigations, protect whistleblowers, and impose penalties including contract termination, fines, and contracting bans. No public testimony was offered, and the bill was left pending. HB 132, sponsored by Senator Hughes, would extend confidentiality protections for sensitive information to hostile acts by foreign adversaries; it was also left pending after no testimony. HB 1584 was then laid out, with Senator Schwertner explaining it would require utilities to maintain and update priority restoration lists for critical facilities after Hurricane Beryl exposed communication failures, but the transcript cuts off before any action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then, as I've studied it and talked to my schools and things, it's obvious you've taken a lot of input
• We started with a very transparent process of gathering community input, getting stakeholder input, and
• We're very excited about all of these measures and we want all of our stakeholders to be equally excited
• teacher rights and protections coming through the session and other. legislation and your suggestions on input
• Thank you again for your constructive input. I appreciate all of you. Absolutely. Thank you.

Bills: SB26, SB 26

Keywords: teacher compensation, education funding, public school educators, teacher retention, teacher designation, SB 26, Texas Property Code, colonia, colonias, Spanish translation, bilingual contract, real estate contract, executory contract, residential property, border county, international border, economically distressed area, consumer protection, language access, translator certified in Spanish

Transcript Highlights:

• Implement our input. So by and large, you would say that currently it's just being ignored.
• You could take that input and do nothing with it.
• And thank you for your input on that. Okay, thank you, sir. We'll move to public testimony.
• meeting without public input?
• For those that can't attend the meeting, they can then provide that input in writing.

Bills: SB3074, HB49, HB2440, HB3556, HB3619, HB3866, HB4042, HB4112, HB4271, HB4413, HB4426, HB5033, HB49

Keywords: SB 3074, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Water Code, permit applications, environmental permitting, administrative record, ex parte communications, legislative communications, governor, lieutenant governor, state legislators, district projects, public records, recusal, conflict of interest, substantial interest, agency transparency, environmental regulation, permit renewal

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill came out of a working group that met monthly 2023 to 2024 involving stakeholders at all levels
• The changes proposed here reflect the work of a working group that represented all the stakeholders and
• in 2023, and it requested the Developmental Disabilities Council to convene a working group of stakeholders
• Committee substitute and 213 is that this includes additional requirements that resulted from some input

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have some industry stakeholders here today and they can further elaborate, but it's important to note
• difference between the triennial process, which is a very methodical, thorough process involving stakeholders
• You're going to have 482 angry cities across California when you move this so quickly without their input
• I know that you are going to continue to meet with stakeholders both for and against the bill and appreciate

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There was a whole litany of things, and we're continuing to work with stakeholders on that.
• state... ...the interests of many people in the state, but we want to be able to work with our stakeholders
• Thank you for that input. I think, you know, we really need to request this data.
• ' input.
• And so they already have that most of the structure in place, as in you can tell the stakeholders that

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• which is why I personally met with CWA leadership in my office several weeks ago and requested their input
• The independent and tri-stakeholder entity, CIRC, has been very supportive through the And here are some
• To lobby for a plan that is as easy and quick as possible with as little evidence or public input as
• There's a lot of stakeholders engaging on both sides on this issue.
• So let me thank all the stakeholders who have come to testify today on both sides.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• fiscal year, and we've incorporated all of that work based on external and internal feedback from stakeholders
• And so in this scenario, the stakeholder group—you went through these different sort of possibilities
• We also would work with both stakeholder groups as well as trusted advisors that we have a state... .
• So thank you for that input and feedback, Mr. Smallwood-Quivas.
• It is complicated, many stakeholders involved. We're hearing it here in a committee of four people.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard May Revision proposals focused on housing, homelessness, and related administrative changes, and took no votes, holding items open for later action. Item 1 would realign staff positions and resources as part of the Governor’s housing and homelessness reorganization, including shifting two Cal ICH positions to HCD, moving one Cal ICH position for communications/external affairs, and authorizing a chief deputy director at the new Housing Development Finance Committee. Administration witnesses said the changes were technical and net zero-cost, while the LAO recommended approval but asked for clarification on funding for the chief deputy. Several senators questioned whether the staffing shifts would weaken Cal ICH’s homelessness work and whether adding communications capacity was appropriate without new housing funding. Item 2 proposed creating a $100 million Disaster Rebuilding Fund at CalHFA, with $56 million General Fund and $44 million in existing National Mortgage Settlement funds, to support disaster-impacted homeowners through tools such as loan loss guarantees and interest rate buy-downs. CalHFA said the fund would help homeowners bridge the gap between insurance proceeds and rebuilding costs and would work through approved lenders. The LAO raised concerns about the lack of alternatives in the proposal, the broad discretion left to CalHFA in program design, and the General Fund cost. Senators pressed for more detail on eligibility, equity safeguards, lender oversight, and how many homeowners would actually benefit, with some warning the proposal was too open-ended and could miss the most vulnerable households. Item 3 addressed trailer bill language for HAP Round 7, including a proposed $500 million General Fund allocation tied to new accountability measures, pro-housing designation requirements for 14 large cities and 11 counties, local match requirements, streamlined system performance metrics, and recapture/reallocation of unspent funds. HCD said the proposal would avoid a new application process by treating Round 7 as additional disbursements of Round 6 and would provide technical assistance to jurisdictions. The LAO and several senators questioned the timing, the burden of pro-housing designation and local match requirements, the vagueness of some standards, and whether the proposal would delay rather than speed up funding. Members also debated whether the trailer bill preserved or weakened existing homelessness accountability metrics and whether the approach was too complicated given local budget pressures and ongoing homelessness needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• I know there's a stakeholder group.
• Once the stakeholder group convenes, we can accelerate the rollout of their rates.
• input to inform decision-making through a two-pronged approach.
• Key design options will be discussed with stakeholders throughout 2025 and into 2026.
• The trailer provides for stakeholder engagement in the development of the hospital value strategy.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• stakeholders. They introduce a bill. stakeholders. They introduce a bill.
• think you know the the stakeholders think you know the the stakeholders heard<01:14:50.800> uh
• made that the existing uh stakeholders made that the existing uh stakeholders have<02:24:47.840>
• We're looking for a little bit of stakeholder input on the DE1.
• excuse me, letting the stakeholders excuse me, letting the stakeholders digest<02:35:26.560>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all