Transcript Highlights:

• But thank you for bringing this into the discussion.
• I was thinking more or less of that because, like, I mean, in the House, when we were discussing it,
• And we’ve had a lot of passionate discussions in all of these committees, but I’ve never seen any of
• I did not think that this was going to be this much of a discussion.
• So to further the discussion on staggering the offenses, the conversation I just had is that the six

Bills: HB177 , HB210 , HB238 , HB258 , HB307 , HB359 , HB398 , HB661 , HB705 , HB752 , HB858

Committee: House House and Governmental Affairs

Keywords: court reporter, official court reporter, courts, judicial system, ethics, post-employment restrictions, cooling-off period, two-year waiting period, rehiring, reemployment, contractual services, former public employee, public employer, Louisiana ethics law, R.S. 42:1121, Act 532, lobbying, public service, statewide officials, compensation

Transcript Highlights:

• There's a lot of good discussion in the Senate. And with that, I am happy to answer any questions.
• Carter, yes, there are a number of things we could discuss. Garages are one of them.
• I'm happy to tell you that we've had a lot of discussion on small lots.
• So I have discussed this with different folks who...
• So I have discussed this with different folks who are supportive of this bill.

Committee: House House Commerce Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee heard Senate Bill 1566, which would prohibit municipalities and counties from maliciously delaying licensing, permits, or approvals, with expedited court review and AG enforcement. The sponsor and supporters framed it as an affordability and property-rights measure aimed at stopping intentional government delay, while local government representatives and some members raised concerns about the bill’s scope, enforcement, and whether ordinary administrative delays or incomplete applications could be swept in. The sponsor said the county language would be fixed to match the city language in a floor amendment. The bill was moved and passed out of committee on a 7-3 vote, with one present and one absent. The committee then heard Senate Bill 1787, which would require written notice and individualized determinations for municipal or county exactions, allow appeals, and provide judicial review. The sponsor and supporters argued it would curb excessive or unrelated conditions imposed on development and align Arizona law with constitutional takings principles. Opponents from cities and counties said existing law already requires nexus and proportionality, and warned the bill would create a duplicative process, confusion, and a more punitive, winner-take-all system. After testimony from property owners and advocacy groups on both sides, the bill passed on a 7-2 vote, with one present and one absent. The committee also heard Senate Bill 1478, a largely technical liquor-regulation cleanup bill that clarifies interim permits, updates terminology, and makes other conforming changes. Stakeholders described it as a consensus measure developed by industry participants and the Department of Revenue, and the bill received broad support. It passed unanimously, 10-0, with one absent. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 1431, which would bar municipalities from dictating certain home design features and from requiring some shared amenities that lead to HOAs. Supporters said it would reduce housing costs and preserve homeowner choice, while opponents argued it would weaken local control, reduce design quality, and limit crime-prevention and neighborhood-character standards. Testimony focused heavily on aesthetics, HOAs, and affordability, but no final vote on SB 1431 was included in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.
• Any discussion about the bill and how we feel and all the rest.
• So discussion on the bill, questions on the bill—I'm sorry—discussions on the bill will be after a motion
• And you could say that about a lot of our tax dollars, and I know there's a lot of discussion in this
• building that happens a lot when folks discuss what the tax dollars are being used for, but when it's

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from February 17 and introduced a new page. It then took up Senate Bill 1261, which would add the word “appointed” to code so that an appointed officeholder is treated the same as an elected one after a resignation and appointment. There was no opposition, and the committee voted to send SB 1261 to the floor with a do-pass recommendation. The main item was House Bill 745, a proposal by Rep. Judy Boyle to bar school districts from using public funds or payroll systems for certain union-related activities. Boyle said the bill would stop districts from paying union dues, increasing compensation to cover dues, providing paid leave for union work, sharing extra personal information with unions, or distributing union communications, while exempting police and firefighter unions and preserving collective bargaining. Committee members pressed her on why teachers were singled out, how the bill fit with existing law, and whether the claimed $1.2 million fiscal impact was consistent with the fiscal note. Boyle said the bill was aimed at keeping taxpayer money in classrooms and that some districts already use public funds for union-related costs. Public testimony on HB 745 was split. Supporters, including representatives of the Freedom Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, the National Right to Work Committee, parents, taxpayers, and several teachers or school employees, argued that payroll deductions, paid release time, and district support for union activities improperly subsidize private political organizations and should be paid for by unions themselves. Opponents, including the Idaho Education Association, the AFL-CIO, a superintendent, and an educator, argued the bill is aimed at teachers’ unions, is not neutral because it excludes police and fire, could interfere with local community events and school partnerships, and may create legal and administrative problems. No final vote on HB 745 was taken in the portion provided; testimony continued with the bill still under consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• You and I have discussed this a little bit. We are going to see this issue differently.
• You and I had discussed this briefly, Representative Chandler.
• But we have not discussed this at all. I have no idea what he thinks about it.
• But I think we've probably covered this in some of the prior debate and discussion.
• I'm repeating myself throughout our discussion today.

Committee: Senate Senate Judiciary

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, any final discussion? All right. Madam Vice Chair, please move the bill. Mr.
• Members, any final discussion? All right, Madam Vice Chair, please move to the bill. Mr.
• All right, members, any other final discussion? All right, seeing none. Mr.
• They were discussions. He did discussions on my part. And he knows my concerns about this bill.
• All right, members, any final discussion before we move the bill?

Bills: HB2127 , HB2257 , HB2305 , HB2573 , HB2772 , HB2941 , HB2957

Committee: House Transportation & Infrastructure

Keywords: special license plates, transportation, funding, nonprofits, charitable contributions, boating, watercraft licensing, law enforcement, safety fund, state funding, Arizona Revised Statutes, towing regulation, private towing carriers, vehicle impound, towing rates, preemption, DUI, ignition interlock, substance abuse treatment, driving privileges

Transcript Highlights:

• I would add to that that in 2023 Hampton was part of the discussion of the then Chair Reeves ecosystem
• or further discussions on this bill.
• So as I'm hearing this discussion, my understanding is, I'm sure you know, water adjudications can be
• It does this by providing time for federal settlement discussions on the front end without requiring
• It does this by providing time for federal settlement discussions on the front end without requiring

Summary: The committee held public hearings on House Bill 2170, which would authorize DNR to enter ecosystem service and carbon contracts on state trust lands, and House Bill 2578, which would add tribal members and alternates to the Fish and Wildlife Commission. For HB 2170, the Department of Natural Resources and supporters said the bill would diversify revenue, help meet climate goals, and allow DNR to participate in emerging carbon and ecosystem markets without necessarily eliminating timber harvest. Opponents, including counties, school districts, timber companies, loggers, and forest industry groups, argued the bill could reduce harvest levels, harm rural jobs and mill supply, and lower revenues for schools and other trust beneficiaries; several said any new authority should be limited to additive projects with stronger safeguards. Supporters included environmental groups and some local officials who said the bill would provide a more stable revenue stream and better align land management with climate and watershed benefits. The chair noted there are two related vehicles in committee, HB 1508 as the negotiated version and HB 2170 as the department version, and the public hearing on HB 2170 was closed after extensive testimony. For HB 2578, staff explained that the bill would add four tribal commissioner positions and four alternates to the Fish and Wildlife Commission, with representation from federally recognized tribes on both sides of the Cascades and staggered terms. Prime sponsor Rep. Deborah Lekanoff said the measure would strengthen co-management and the state’s government-to-government relationship with tribes, while acknowledging there are other related bills and ongoing legal issues involving WDFW. The chair asked whether the bill would affect existing tribal consultation obligations, and Lekanoff said it would not replace government-to-government consultation; she also said she would follow up on how the governor would make appointments. The hearing on HB 2578 was then suspended so the committee could return to HB 2170 testimony. The committee also heard staff briefing and sponsor testimony on House Bill 2544, which would create a pilot process for the Upper Columbia River water rights adjudication. Staff said the bill would require Ecology to run the adjudication in two phases, starting with tribal and federal claimants and allowing time for settlement before bringing in other claims, with a report due by June 2035. Rep. Larry Springer said the bill is intended to establish a baseline of water use more efficiently in a process that can otherwise take decades. After the briefing and sponsor remarks, the committee began public testimony on the bill, with tribal representatives and other stakeholders queued to testify.

Transcript Highlights:

• civics, discussing policy.
• So we want even maybe as early as eighth grade or seventh grade, to have them discussing topics that
• are probably more shallow than what we discuss in your senior year.
• , a direct avenue to increase exposure... ...valuable contributions to district funding discussions,
• Sometimes when we were having very heated discussions on the board about...

Summary: The Senate and Assembly Education Committees held their annual joint hearing with the California Association of Student Councils and SABLE, where student delegates presented policy ideas developed over two days. Committee members repeatedly praised student voice and noted that several past student proposals had become law. The hearing began with opening remarks from legislators and student organizers, who emphasized the importance of civic participation and the value of hearing directly from students. The chair also reviewed hearing rules and explained that the panels would be treated as peers in a formal policy discussion. The first panel proposed an annual civic engagement day for grades 7-12, with flexible activities such as mock elections, civic fairs, Socratic seminars, and public comment practice. Members asked about costs, grade-level flexibility, voter registration, and how the proposal would fit within existing curriculum time. The second panel proposed amending Education Code Section 35012 to require at least one student board member in every unified and high school district, with expanded training and motion rights. Legislators supported the concept but raised technical concerns about fiscal impact, the need for odd-numbered boards, the scope of motioning authority, and whether districts would need reimbursement if the mandate became statewide. A third panel proposed adding middle school financial literacy instruction by embedding it into existing classes, with curriculum and teacher training developed over time by state agencies. Members questioned how it would fit into adopted materials and whether the state should wait until the new high school financial literacy course is fully implemented before designing middle school instruction. The fourth panel proposed expanding restorative justice by creating a CDE task force and authorizing PPS-certified staff to use restorative justice training materials in discipline processes. Senators discussed prior legislation, confidentiality concerns in closed-session hearings, and the fiscal cost of a state task force, while expressing support for stronger restorative practices. The final panel proposed more active mental health education through short, twice-semester classroom sessions for grades 7-12 focused on coping skills, time management, and awareness of resources. Assemblymember Castillo and Senator Cortese questioned whether teachers and counselors could effectively deliver the program, whether it would duplicate or overburden existing efforts, and whether wellness centers or student-led awareness efforts might be more effective. Committee members generally agreed the topic was important but were skeptical that another curriculum mandate was the best solution, and no votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• For example, younger students can be introduced to civics with guided Socratic seminar-style discussions
• civics, discussing policy.
• are probably more shallow than what we discuss in your senior year.
• , a direct avenue to increase exposure... ...valuable contributions to district funding discussions,
• Sometimes when we were having very heated discussions on the board about...

Summary: The annual joint Senate and Assembly Education Committee hearing featured student proposals from the California Association of Student Councils and SABLE, with opening remarks from legislators emphasizing student voice and the value of hearing youth ideas. Committee members noted the hearing was being streamed and that they would review the testimony even though some members could not attend because of fog-related travel issues. The first panel proposed an annual civic engagement day for grades 7-12, with flexible school-led activities such as discussions, mock elections, and voter registration-related events. Members generally praised the idea but raised concerns about costs, instructional time tradeoffs, how to evaluate effectiveness, and whether the proposal should better connect to existing civics standards and local curriculum. The second panel proposed amending Education Code Section 35012 to require at least one student board member in every unified and high school district, with added training and the right to make motions. Legislators supported student representation in principle but questioned whether the proposal should require one or two student members to avoid board tie issues, why some districts do not already have student trustees, and how the mandate would be funded if it became a state requirement. They also raised technical concerns about the scope of motioning power and the fiscal impact of converting a voluntary local practice into a statewide mandate. Later panels proposed adding middle school financial literacy instruction, expanding restorative justice practices, and creating more structured mental health education time. On financial literacy, students suggested integrating finance into existing middle school classes and teacher training over time; members worried about curriculum overload and suggested aligning the idea with the already-approved high school finance course. On restorative justice, students proposed a CDE task force and training for PPS-certified staff; legislators discussed prior related bills, confidentiality concerns in discipline hearings, and the likely cost of a state task force. On mental health, students proposed short, twice-semester classroom sessions focused on coping skills and awareness of resources, but members questioned whether such brief lessons could be effective and suggested that wellness centers, student-led awareness, and outside referrals might be more practical. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with encouragement for students to refine their proposals and follow up with legislators.

Transcript Highlights:

• civics, discussing policy.
• So we want even maybe as early as eighth grade or seventh grade, to have them discussing topics that
• are probably more shallow than what we discuss in your senior year.
• Sometimes when we were having very heated discussions on the board about...
• How that will be determined in the future will have to be discussed.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm going to discuss a few topics with you all today.
• And that was a discussion that I was having with the governor.
• You might wanna discuss that or have that discussion. Okay, Mr. Chair, members of the committee.
• Next, I'm happy to discuss this further in question and answer.
• And that's a discussion we've also been having for several years on this.

Committee: Senate Senate Finance

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, so at this time we're going to go to the discussion items.
• I mean, we are getting ready to do some major Medicaid discussions as federal changes are being made
• as Federal changes Medicaid discussions as Federal changes are<00:11:42.760><c> being</c><00:11:43.000
• about moving MCO have a a discussion about moving MCO reduction<00:11:57.480><c> we</c><00:11:57.600
• in this discussion is what's going lost in this discussion is what's going to<00:17:04.559><c> be</c

Keywords: Due to a technical issue in the room, the quality of the stream will be diminished. We apologize for the inconvenience. Meeting start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:02:00 SB 61 Discussion Only 00:03:25 SB 13 Discussion Only 00:07:19 SJR 25 Discussion 00:25:33 SJR 25 Vote 00:28:40 SB 61 Discussion Only 00:29:44, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 61, relating to swimming pools, but initially had no representative from the governor’s office or cabinet available to explain the fiscal estimate. Senators questioned why the executive branch’s estimate was $4.25 million to $8.5 million while the committee’s internal fiscal note showed little or no impact. When Department for Public Health staff later joined, they explained their estimate was based on a roughly $85,000 cost for a large outbreak investigation, using a 2014 outbreak as a benchmark, and said the bill could increase workload and outside laboratory costs if private swimming pools became more common as rental properties. They reported 822 waterborne cases in 2024, with 8 tied to private swimming pools, and later corrected an earlier figure to 14 private-pool-related investigations over five years. Senators pressed on the discrepancy between those numbers and the projected 50 to 100 incidents, and staff said the higher figure was a ballpark estimate. The discussion also clarified that private pools are generally excluded by definition, while pools held out for rent may be treated as public pools under current definitions. No vote on SB 61 was taken in the portion provided. The committee then heard Senate Bill 13, concerning the reprocurement of managed care organizations for Medicaid. Department for Medicaid Services officials said the bill would require work on a new RFP, system changes, and oversight improvements, and estimated the cost at $2.8 million based on prior procurement spending of about $2.5 million in 2018-2019, with a 10% growth adjustment. They explained that the work is administrative and therefore matched at 50/50 federal-state funding, not the 80/20 rate used for benefits, and said the expense would be incurred whether the bill passed or not if the state proceeded with an RFP. Senators discussed possible savings from reducing the number of MCOs from five to three, but agency staff said those savings were hard to quantify and that provider and member disruption could create offsetting costs. The committee later moved on to Senate Joint Resolution 25, which would ask the Revenue Department to report on the cost of issuing farmers a wallet-sized tax-exempt card instead of a paper certificate. The resolution was adopted by roll call, with all members present voting aye, and it was reported favorably to the floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• ,</c><00:04:37.919><c> we're</c> today, as the chair discussed, we're today, as the chair discussed,
• </c><00:09:47.279><c> Um</c> discuss them today. Um discuss them today.
• I will discuss how and when the penalty occurs in more detail in just a moment.
• Um, moving to member questions and discussion. >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
• Um, overall though, I would just like to say that it has been a good forum for discussion on terms of

Committee: House Taxes

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Any<00:28:41.600><c> discussion?</c> Any discussion? Any discussion?
• ,</c><00:41:39.040><c> these</c> what David Beltry has discussed, these what David Beltry has discussed
• Any discussion<01:11:42.239><c> members?</c> discussion members? discussion members?
• Um no discussion. that's fine. Um no discussion.
• ,</c> uh yesterday and having a discussion, uh yesterday and having a discussion, the<01:23:15.840><c

Bills: SB3275 , SB3105

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Keywords: cannabis, low-dose, personal use, cultivation, cannabis accessories, Hawaii cannabis law, medical cannabis, physician assistant, licensure compact, medical services, interstate practice, healthcare portability, military families, licensing authority, 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection reconsidered two condominium bills and adopted recommendations to pass both with amendments. For SB 2433, members approved amendments clarifying that condominium unit owners’ interests are to be recognized and protected in educational and related programs by the Real Estate Commission and DCCA, while making technical changes and changing the effective date. For SB 2838, the committee replaced the bill’s broader substantive language with a narrower requirement that associations provide electronic copies of specified documents, including master leases, reserve studies, audited financial statements, contracts, leases, and other agreements, along with technical changes and an amended effective date. Both measures were adopted unanimously by the members present, with Senator McKelvey excused. The committee then heard SB 2710 on animal issues, which would define and regulate dog breeders, set care standards, create county licensing authority, require records, and establish an animal abuser registry and related penalties. Testimony was mixed: the Public Defender and the American Kennel Club opposed the bill, arguing for stronger enforcement of existing laws rather than harsher penalties and warning that the bill would burden responsible breeders; the Hawaiian Humane Society supported the bill’s breeder regulation and registry provisions but urged removal of the hoarding section; and the committee noted 26 written testimonies in support, 14 in opposition, and four comments. In decision-making, the committee passed SB 2710 with amendments that blanked the license fee, deleted the animal abuser registry and shelter/pet store/breeder compliance checks, struck the hoarding provisions and proposed criminal penalty changes, and made technical changes with a deferred effective date. The committee also heard SB 2209 on rental discrimination, which would allow attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in source-of-income discrimination cases, and SB 2884, which would create a nonrefundable income tax credit for wind-resistant retrofits or hurricane shelters. The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission supported SB 2209, and the committee later passed it with a deferred effective date. SB 2884 drew support from DCCA’s Insurance Division, the Department of Taxation, HEMA, the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, and a public witness who urged hurricane preparedness; it was passed with the Department of Taxation’s proposed amendments and a deferred effective date. Finally, the committee heard SB 2922 on cooperative associations, which would create a general cooperative associations framework. DCCA offered comments, while the Hawaii Co-op Hui, Purple Maya Foundation, Enliven Cooperative, and Hawaii Farmers Union supported the measure and argued that current law is too limited for worker, producer, and multi-stakeholder co-ops. After discussion about using the existing chapter 421C structure rather than creating a new regulatory scheme, the committee passed SB 2922 with amendments adopting changes proposed in testimony from the Hawaii Farmers Union and deferred the effective date.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> &gt;&gt; Any further discussion on the minutes?
• &gt;&gt; Any further discussion on the minutes?
• </c> also had a number of robust discussions also had a number of robust discussions about<00:33:15.200
• In those discussions that New Hampshire.
• </c> campaigns. were in active discussions campaigns. were in active discussions with<00:40:08.480><c

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first handled routine business, including roll call and approval of the prior meeting minutes, with one member abstaining because of absence and one member opposing. The main informational items were a Department of Health and Human Services update on the rural health transformation grant and a public health briefing on vaccines, followed by a quarterly budget and staffing update and an annual report from the Permanent Subcommittee on Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Related Dementias. Commissioner Lori Weaver reported that the department submitted the rural health transformation grant application on November 4, described it as reflecting input from communities and providers statewide, and said CMS review and budget negotiations would follow before final approval on December 31. She said the grant could support hiring as long as administrative costs stay within the 10% cap, and that the governor’s office will oversee administration with HHS. Ian Watt then testified that New Hampshire remains committed to vaccine access, including through the universal purchase program and annual respiratory virus guidance for flu, RSV, and COVID-19. He said the state continues to use evidence-based review for vaccine policy, noted the CDC’s change regarding the combined MMRV vaccine for the first dose in young children, and said New Hampshire’s school vaccine mandates remain at nine for schoolchildren and 10 for child care, with statutory exemptions still in place. Department staff also said there have been no supply or funding problems affecting childhood vaccine access. Nathan White, the department’s CFO, reviewed the DHHS budget and vacancy trends. He said DHHS makes up a large share of the state budget, that about 31% of its budget is general funds subject to lapse, and that lapse projections are difficult because much of the budget is driven by utilization rather than personnel. He reported current projected general fund lapse of just under $20 million, compared with about $39 million in the statewide surplus statement, and explained that only about a third of DHHS general funds can actually lapse because of statutory restrictions. He also said the department has about 400 unfunded positions, contributing to roughly a $30 million general fund reduction across the biennium, and that the hiring freeze has pushed vacancy trends upward while critical direct-care positions are being prioritized. The Alzheimer’s subcommittee reported six meetings this year, presentations on state services, silver alerts, brain health awareness, and palliative/hospice care, and work toward a new state Alzheimer’s plan. The subcommittee is developing a needs-assessment survey for people living with dementia, caregivers, and service providers, with the goal of using the results and other data sources to inform the plan. Its recommendations focus on integrating Alzheimer’s and dementia materials into chronic disease and aging outreach, embedding brain health into systems of care, adding cognitive health measures to BRFSS, and continuing partnerships with statewide organizations. Members also discussed recent research and prevention efforts, and the committee noted that a separate bill is being pursued to include Alzheimer’s and dementia in existing public health awareness campaigns.

Transcript Highlights:

• Discussion to the amendment. Representative Zeleznikar, thank you, Madam Speaker and members.
• Madam Speaker, discussion. Representative Nash. Madam Speaker, I would request a roll call.
• Further discussion? Representative Gomez. Representative Gomez, thank you, Madam Speaker.
• </c><00:22:38.840><c> representative</c> you further discussion representative you further discussion
• </c> members we've had a lot of discussion members we've had a lot of discussion and<01:34:11.480><c>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• There's no discussion.
• </c><00:36:51.200><c> to</c> discussion.
• There's no opportunity to discussion.
• .<01:14:39.720><c> Um</c> discussion.
• Um discussion.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House File 29 was heard in committee as a proposal to suspend adoption of the revised social studies standards, push implementation to 2030-31, repeal the requirement to embed ethnic studies across all standards, and cancel related appropriations. The bill sponsor argued Minnesota schools should focus on basic academic achievement and that ethnic studies requirements add burdens and distract from reading, math, and science. The chair moved the bill to the Committee on Education Finance after opening the hearing and then took extensive public testimony. Testimony was sharply divided. Supporters of HF 29, including Katherine Kersten, Deanna Moose, Kendall Qualls, Hillary Swanson, and Diane Smith, argued the ethnic studies framework is ideological, overly focused on race, insufficiently transparent, and costly in professional development time; several said it would divide students or burden teachers. Some supporters also claimed the standards or framework promote activism, critical race theory, or racial stratification. Opponents, including Mark Westfall, Crystal Johnson, Jim Grathwol, Marcus Penny, Claude Sigman, and Courtney Major, said the standards are inclusive, research-based, and designed to help students understand multiple perspectives, civic life, and the contributions of diverse Minnesotans. They emphasized that ethnic studies can improve engagement, critical thinking, and representation, and that teachers should be trusted to implement the standards. No final vote on the bill was taken in the portion of the meeting provided. The only formal action noted was the chair’s motion to re-refer House File 29 to the Committee on Education Finance.

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, any further discussion?
• </c><00:07:42.360><c> from</c> in any questions or discussion from in any questions or discussion from
• Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion prevails.
• Is there any discussion on Senate File 11 as amended?
• </c><00:12:52.760><c> all</c> of the A1 Amendment any discussion all of the A1 Amendment any discussion

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Public Safety

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is a brief discussion about that, right?
• </c> terms of I know there's some discussion terms of I know there's some discussion in<00:23:51.440>
• </c> Rosenalds that discussion. Rosenalds that discussion.
• discussed? discussed? the<01:39:59.119><c> number</c><01:39:59.280><c> of</c> river. river. river.
• </c> which followed up on some discussions which followed up on some discussions that<02:32:51.840><c

Committee: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I know there was some discussion and some legislation last session.
• I know there was some discussion and some legislation last session.
• So I did have a few points on the rules that I wanted to discuss.
• I think it's a good discussion, though, as to limitations.
• I think it's a good discussion, though, as to limitations.

Committee: All ALC-ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

Summary: The Administrative Rules Subcommittee met to review a long agenda of agency rule changes, beginning with housekeeping on the order of business and then taking up rules from multiple state agencies. Early items included Department of Energy and Environment rules on landfill post-closure trust fund spending thresholds and liquefied petroleum gas standards, DFA’s odometer disclosure rule allowing electronic signatures and disclosures, and several Department of Health rules covering ionizing radiation, mobile home and recreational parks, lead-based paint, counseling licensure, hearing instrument dispensers, athletic training, dental specialties and compacts, nursing, pharmacy, physician assistants, medical compacts, speech-language pathology and audiology, radiologic technology, massage therapy, community health workers, doula certification, and cosmetology/body art. Most of these were described as technical updates, conformity with recent acts, federal standards, or compact participation, and nearly all were approved without objection after brief questions and, in many cases, no public comment. The committee also reviewed Department of Labor and Licensing rules on minimum wage/independent contractor standards, boiler rules, motor vehicle commission requirements for ATV/LSV dealers, professional wrestling regulation, appraiser qualifications, and military recruiting and retention programs. Testimony generally emphasized that the rules implemented recent legislation, updated fees or licensing standards, or streamlined existing processes. Members asked a few questions about fee structures, the rationale for regulating professional wrestling, and how the National Guard’s public-private partnership and incentive programs would work; the department said the recruiting incentives would be funded from existing appropriations and were intended to improve retention and force strength. These rules were also approved without objection. The most extensive discussion came on the Department of Education’s Arkansas Children’s Educational Freedom Account Program rule. The department said the revisions, based on Act 920 of 2025, were intended to add guardrails, clarify allowable expenses, and speed approval of core educational purchases. Changes included defining core educational expenses, limiting certain sports-related spending, adding an intentional misuse standard, restricting phone purchases except for disability-related needs, setting a $1,000 threshold for additional review of technology purchases, capping carryover funds at $8,500, and creating a reconsideration process for denied expenses. Members raised concerns about safeguards, appeals, sports equipment, provider credentialing, rural vendor access, and whether the department would be flexible or overly restrictive. The department said it would review every request, provide written explanations for denials, allow appeals up to the State Board, and refer suspected fraud to prosecutors if necessary. After hearing from 13 members of the public, the committee continued to discuss the rule, but the transcript ends before any final vote on the EFA rule is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, I think the first one was discuss the request, the RFP.
• </c><00:36:02.360><c> of</c> from KCNA for uh our our discussion of from KCNA for uh our our discussion
• </c> discuss the request the RFP. discuss the request the RFP.
• I mean, we discussed we just discovered.
• discuss that you briefly discuss that um<00:56:52.720><c> in</c><00:56:52.880><c> terms</c><00:56:53.320

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Report of KCNA Board Meeting 00:00:09 KCNA Transition to COT 00:35:55 KCNA Request for Proposals 00:42:00 Kentucky Wired Operations Company 00:42:30, 958, all

Summary: The Information Technology Oversight Committee met, approved the January 12, 2026 minutes, and then heard testimony from KCNA Chair David Couch, KCNA Director Jim Barnhart, and KCNA General Counsel Adam Adkins about the ongoing dispute involving KCNA, Excelacom, and the implementation of House Bill 314. Couch said the board and vendor had recently shown some willingness to work toward a settlement, and he emphasized the importance of KCNA’s broadband service to K-12 schools, noting that litigation had already cost about $1.4 million and could cost another $1.4 million if it continued. He also said the board had identified five immediate goals, including reconnecting 38 K-12 sites, de-escalating disputes, better understanding KCNA finances, protecting the state’s bonding rating, and examining whether duplicate networking hardware could be consolidated. A major portion of the discussion focused on whether House Bill 314 changed KCNA’s authority and how much control the Finance and Administration Cabinet and KCNA’s legal counsel have over operations and contracts. Senator Williams argued that the board now has authority to set policy, implement policy, and approve budgets, and questioned why the cabinet appeared to be exercising operational control. Adkins responded that HB 314 changed the reporting chain from the general government cabinet to the finance cabinet but did not alter the board’s authority, and said budget work on the Ice Miller contract predated HB 314. Couch and other members disputed that interpretation, saying the board had not been properly informed about a recent extension or increase in legal spending and that the board’s directives were not being followed. Representative Hodgson asked why the board could not terminate a contractor if it was not carrying out the board’s wishes, and Adkins replied that Ice Miller was not a party to the board’s contract and that the Finance and Administration Cabinet signs such agreements. The exchange ended with committee members and KCNA representatives agreeing to disagree on the meaning of the statute and the extent of board authority. No formal action was taken beyond approving the minutes and receiving testimony.