Transcript Highlights:

• And and would love to have that discussion with you too.
• I would welcome that discussion.
• I want to start by discussing the review of the competitive grant awards, as we discussed on the phone
• You know, during our discussion, we talked about our time as county executives, and so you know that
• agreement discussions have not yet resumed.

Committee: Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Keywords: surface transportation, infrastructure reauthorization, bipartisan collaboration, safety, federal programs, funding challenges, bureaucracy, transportation needs, critical projects, public testimony

Summary: The committee meeting focused on the development of the next surface transportation reauthorization bill. Discussions centered around key principles aimed at improving the safety and reliability of the transportation network, reforming federal programs for efficiency, and addressing the diverse transportation needs across various states. Members emphasized the importance of bipartisan collaboration to streamline processes, eliminate bureaucratic delays, and ensure timely funding for critical infrastructure projects. There were also notable conversations about specific projects and funding challenges, reflecting the urgency for action and commitment to modernizing America's infrastructure.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it.
• Is there any discussion? This is to get the bill in the shape that the author would like.
• It's a pleasure to be here today to discuss the Minnesota Made Ammonia Act.
• We're discussing ammonia, Mr.
• And have a great discussion on House File 2793. Thank you, Chair Suswinski.

Bills: HF2103 , HF2793

Committee: House Energy Finance and Policy

Keywords: energy, renewable energy, ammonia, hydrogen, certificate tracking, funding, environment, community solar, energy policy, sustainability, solar garden program, regulation sunset

Transcript Highlights:

• The issue we are here to discuss extends far beyond the borders of the United States.
• So we have agreement on that, and we're going to have a discussion about how that's playing out this
• Ben frequently appears on national television and radio programs to discuss these and other matters.
• It's an honor to appear before you today to discuss free speech. censorship.
• You saw big tech giants say, we're not going to allow you to discuss this story, even in your private

Committee: Senate Constitution Subcommittee

Keywords: censorship, First Amendment, social media, misinformation, free speech, government regulation, Big Tech, public discourse

Summary: The meeting primarily focused on the implications of government involvement in censorship, particularly regarding social media platforms and compliance with misinformation standards. senators and witnesses discussed growing concerns over the influence of large tech companies, like Facebook and Google, in shaping public discourse and suppressing dissenting views. A significant part of the meeting included testimonies from various experts emphasizing the dangers of the 'censorship industrial complex'—a term used to describe the collaborative efforts between government entities and private organizations to control information flow. This collaboration is viewed as a violation of First Amendment rights, with calls for urgent legislative action to restore free speech protections.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
• Because I think that's something that we need to make sure is a big part of our discussion.
• It was critically important when we discussed using those funds to pay for CWD testing on deer farms,
• We had discussions with the Arts and Creative Materials Institute.
• to have those discussions.

Committee: House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• The first time we ran it, we did have discussion, and it was clearly there were going to be some tax
• Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Representative Alvarez, for always being open to discussion.
• It's a nice discussion that we're having here today.
• However, as we discussed, we have scheduled a call with some folks that...
• And if there is an issue, then we'd certainly entertain a discussion on how to resolve that.

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee met on March 20, 2025, and first approved HB 4025, creating the Duke Farm Stewardship District in Lee County, on a 17-0 vote. The committee then advanced HJR 1215, which proposes a constitutional amendment to exempt agricultural tangible personal property from property tax, after extended debate about the fiscal impact on counties, especially rural and fiscally constrained ones; it passed 16-1. HB 411 also passed unanimously after an amendment, extending affordable housing tax exemption treatment to certain nonprofit projects on leased land, including Habitat for Humanity projects. The committee likewise approved CS/HB 669, allowing local governments to purchase certain unrated bonds, and CS/HB 4017, codifying the Vermont Drainage District charter in Charlotte County, both without opposition. The committee also approved HJR 1039, which would let the Legislature prevent assessed-value increases for homestead properties that are improved to mitigate flood damage, and the related implementing bill HB 1041; both passed 17-0. Public testimony on these items included some opposition to the flood-related amendment, but no floor debate changed the outcome. The final major item was CS/HB 1221 by Rep. Miller, which would require local option taxes to be renewed by voter referendum every eight years, with longer terms allowed for bonded projects. That bill drew the most extensive testimony and debate, with counties, tourism groups, and local officials warning about impacts on tourism funding, infrastructure, schools, and public safety, while supporters argued for taxpayer accountability and periodic review. After debate, the committee reported the bill favorably on a 13-4 vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• As we get started on part one to discuss AB 2247 by Sam Leonard Gibson.
• I think we had a good, robust discussion today.
• So I do appreciate your discussion with us today. Thank you.
• We have continued to have these discussions.
• And have you been having ongoing discussions with the Department of Insurance?

Committee: House Human Services

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think we all discussed this in January, but just wanted to highlight that. And then finally, Mr.
• This is something that we have been discussing Something that we have been discussing is a topic next
• is recalibration. discussion is recalibration.
• The superintendent has been in constant discussions with WASA, been in constant discussions with WASA
• And I appreciate this discussion on SROs and the safety of our kids. I think... Let me back up.

Committee: Joint Select Committee on School Finance Recalibration

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Obviously, they're hearing it from a lot of superintendents related to this discussion.
• Obviously, it's moving, a very fluid discussion taking place, and so I appreciate you taking the time
• The one thing I will say is, as we continue to see ridership come back, those are the discussions that
• And we will certainly take all that into consideration in this discussion. So thank you.
• And we'll keep talking as we move forward in this discussion. Thank you. That is it for testimony.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Ways and Means

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 55, the governor’s FY25 supplemental budget proposal to spend about $1.3 billion in surplus Fair Share revenue. House and Senate chairs framed the bill as a one-time opportunity to invest fairly in education and transportation, while also noting the need to protect the state’s long-term fiscal balance. Administration officials said the proposal should be considered alongside the FY26 budget and related bills, since the governor’s broader Fair Share plan aims for roughly an even split between education and transportation over time. Secretary of Administration and Finance Matthew Gorzkowicz, Transportation Secretary Monica Tibbits-Nutt, and Education Secretary Patrick Tutwiler outlined the administration’s priorities. Transportation funding would go mainly to the MBTA and related reserves, including money for the Federal Transit Administration reserve, MBTA stabilization reserve, low-income fares, winter resilience, RTA workforce support, MassDOT workforce and project delivery, and micro-transit grants. Education funding would support universal preschool expansion, early education and care capacity, early literacy tutoring, adult basic education and ESOL, early college and career technical education, MyCAP expansion, and special education circuit breaker funding. The administration emphasized that many of these investments are one-time or multi-year measures designed to address current needs without creating unsustainable recurring costs. Committee members raised concerns about regional equity, especially the large share of transportation money going to the MBTA versus regional transit authorities and rural areas. Several members asked for more detail on how the proposal would benefit Western Massachusetts and other non-MBTA regions, and whether micro-transit and Chapter 90-related investments would be sufficient. Education questions focused on special education reimbursement shortfalls, federal funding cuts to school districts, and how CTE and vocational investments would align students with workforce needs. The administration said it would provide additional data on MBTA versus RTA investment and explained that the special education circuit breaker and transportation reimbursement changes were intended to improve predictability and relief for districts. After the administration panel, Jessica Tang of AFT Massachusetts testified in support of using Fair Share funds to protect public education amid federal uncertainty and cuts. She argued that schools are facing a fiscal cliff, that vulnerable students would be hit hardest by funding losses, and that the Fair Share revenue should be used to preserve services and support students’ needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• Secondly, by investing in clean energy, as we discussed before, Madam President, a kilowatt of clean
• And I would like to confine our discussions to what's in the bill, but would be happy to discuss that
• They won't have a seat at the table on important discussions involving their communities.
• THEY WON'T HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE ON IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS INVOLVING THEIR COMMUNITIES.
• But I'm very happy with some parts of it that we did not discuss today: Part N and Part O.

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate convened, approved the prior journal, and then moved through a series of budget-related and ceremonial items. The chamber accepted Rules and Finance Committee reports and took up several budget extender and budget implementation bills, including the main appropriations extender and later a transportation, economic development, and environmental conservation budget bill. Senators questioned the sponsor extensively about the status of the remaining budget bills, the use of messages of necessity, and the absence of joint budget conference committees. The extender bill passed 59-2, and later budget-related measures were advanced after reconsideration and amendment. A major portion of the session focused on the environmental and energy provisions in the budget bill, especially changes to the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. Senators debated extending emissions targets, the role of cap-and-invest, utility affordability, ratepayer impacts, and the structure of a proposed blue-ribbon commission. Supporters said the changes were needed to give the state more time to implement the law and to protect affordability, while opponents argued the bill was a political delay that would not lower energy costs and relied too heavily on subsidies and future planning. The bill also drew questions about electric vehicle rebates, thermostat control programs, emergency diesel generation for Micron, and how imported electricity and out-of-state emissions would be treated. The Senate also adopted several previously adopted resolutions honoring the 50th anniversary of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators, India Independence Day, the New York State Veterans Hall of Fame, and the 50th anniversary of Interfaith Works of Central New York. Senators spoke in support of each resolution, highlighting the contributions of Black legislators, Indian-American communities, veterans, and refugee and interfaith service organizations. The Veterans Hall of Fame ceremony was specifically noted as a chamber event, and guests were recognized from the floor and gallery. In addition, the Senate restored recalled bills to the third reading calendar through reconsideration votes and amendments, including a highway law bill and another recalled bill, and then stood at ease for scheduled conferences and a Veterans Hall of Fame ceremony before resuming session. The transcript ended with discussion of a separate bill affecting automobile insurance serious-injury standards, with questions about what claims would remain available and whether the change would improve affordability.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'd gladly sit down and discuss this in further detail.
• And so I haven't had a chance to sit down to have a good discussion with him about it. All right.
• </c><00:19:44.000><c> this</c> Kelly for their time in discussing this Kelly for their time in discussing
• It was not introduced over in the House, but I think it warrants having some discussion here.
• It was not introduced over in the House, but I think it warrants having some discussion here.

Keywords: 916, all

Summary: The Judiciary Interim Committee met under time constraints and asked members to rank interim topics for a letter to Management Council. The committee then took brief public testimony on a series of proposed study topics, with no formal votes recorded in the transcript. Early testimony focused on landlord eviction rights, where speakers said the court eviction process is too slow, can worsen housing shortages, and leaves landlords unable to recover rent, fees, or damage costs. The foster care topic was presented as a request to examine whether the system gives too much weight to reunification and not enough to the child’s best interests, especially for younger children. A Blue Envelope Program proposal was also discussed; supporters said it would help law enforcement communicate with autistic or otherwise communication-challenged individuals during traffic stops and emergencies, and improve consistency statewide. The committee also heard a proposal to study Wyoming’s homicide-by-vehicle statute, with testimony from a constituent whose mother was killed by a repeat dangerous driver. Speakers argued the current law leaves a gap because prior DUIs, high-risk driving history, and other aggravating factors do not meaningfully affect charging unless intoxication or extreme conduct is present. Related testimony from Wyoming Pathways said the change should be a tool in the toolbox for prosecutors and could improve safety for pedestrians and drivers. Senator Cooper then raised campaign finance reform and dark money, urging a resolution asking Wyoming’s congressional delegation to seek a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and restore state control over election spending transparency. Additional topics included a request from the Wyoming Livestock Board to review peace officer statutes so its investigators could act on felonies committed in their presence or prevent imminent bodily harm, while remaining within their current duties and certification. Representative Lee asked for review of non-disclosure agreements in public-private partnerships and executive sessions so the public can eventually understand how such agreements were used. Senator Pearson asked for interim consideration of shared custody amendments, saying fit parents should have a fair opportunity for shared parenting after separation. Representative Storer proposed revisiting DUI penalties, especially for refusal of chemical testing, arguing that refusal often prevents prosecution and that the law should impose treatment and license suspension consequences. The committee also heard a request to review statutes involving political parties, and the state court administrator asked for interim study of remote public access to court records, citing ongoing automation efforts, privacy concerns, and funding needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any discussion on the amendment?
• In discussions with the from my head?
• ,</c><00:20:42.880><c> and</c> discussions with the university, and discussions with the university,
• So, is there any further discussion? Mr.
• Any further discussion? >> Mr.

Keywords: 916, all

Summary: The committee met to consider amendments to House Bill 111. It first adopted amendment number one without objection. Members then discussed a Senate amendment related to a $750,000 state match for the Central Wyoming College Jackson project, with Senator Laursen explaining the request as a way to leverage local fundraising for the final phase of the project. He said the project had been underway since 2018, that the building was nearing completion, and that the amendment was intended to encourage a local fundraising campaign rather than wait for a later appropriation. Representative Lien questioned whether the funding had gone through the usual approval process, and other members raised concerns about bypassing standard procedures, while Laursen argued the request was consistent with prior late-stage project adjustments and reflected local skin in the game. The discussion also covered a Senate amendment concerning University of Wyoming land use, specifically whether language should remain requiring open space or allow trustees more flexibility to decide between open space and parking. One member moved to delete the Senate amendment and reinsert the stricken language, but after discussion the motion was withdrawn so the committee could consider all amendments together. Members noted that the university had already been discussing the plan and that the language change would not necessarily alter the trustees’ authority, though it might protect the university. The committee then turned to a Gillette College/Enzi building amendment. Senator Driscoll said the proposal was his own and not requested by the college, and Janelle Overberlander, founding president of Gillette Community College District, testified about the history of the project, including the 2021 separation from the Northern Wyoming Community College District, prior planning for a STEM building, and the later decision to revive the project as an academic building honoring Senator Enzi. She said the building is intended to address lab space needs and support industry partners, including companies expected to bring jobs to Campbell County. Driscoll explained that the amendment would provide a dollar-for-dollar match for non-state money and require Gillette College to move to a four-mill levy, which he said would eventually make the college a net contributor to the system. The committee continued discussing the amendment and its long-term fiscal effects, but no final vote on the later amendments is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Maybe we can just have a little more discussion. >> So I can speak.
• Maybe we can just have a little more discussion. >> So I can speak.
• Today, we did have quite a bit of discussion about uh regulations of meat plants.
• Today, we did have quite a bit of discussion<00:25:13.440><c> about</c><00:25:14.400><c> uh</c> Discussion
• So, we've had this discussion before, but how many times is there a schedule?

Committee: Joint Appropriations

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It is not enough to give a student a seat at the table in these discussions.
• I look forward to our discussion today.
• I look forward to our discussion today.
• Were any of the other two items that you discussed implemented?
• I know that was discussed here today.

Summary: The joint Assembly Higher Education and Budget Subcommittee hearing focused on the future of the California State University system, with opening remarks emphasizing CSU’s major role in California’s economy, workforce, and degree production. Chairs and members said the hearing was intended to inform 2026 budget decisions and to examine three main issues: declining enrollment at some campuses, cost controls and possible consolidation, and oversight of recent state investments at campuses such as Humboldt and Sonoma. The meeting was briefly delayed by microphone and sound problems before reconvening. The first panel featured CSU Academic Senate Chair Dr. Elizabeth Boyd and Cal State Student Association Vice President Katie Karam. Boyd urged the Legislature to protect academic freedom, strengthen faculty governance, provide stable ongoing funding, end unfunded mandates, support student food and housing security, fund flexible course schedules, improve transfer systems such as ASSIST, avoid over-centralizing academic programs, protect immigrant students, and expand intersegmental collaboration. Karam said students are feeling the effects of budget shortfalls through fewer course sections, reduced advising and services, longer time to degree, and tuition pressure, and she called for transparency, meaningful student involvement in budget decisions, and sustained state investment rather than cuts that harm the student experience. The second panel covered enrollment management and included CSU Chancellor’s Office and campus administrators from Chico State, Cal State L.A., and San Diego State. Dr. Delcy Perez said CSU Forward and the new systemwide enrollment plan are aimed at expanding access, aligning programs with workforce needs, and increasing resident enrollment; she reported systemwide enrollment gains and strong application numbers, including a direct-admissions pilot that expanded from Riverside to more campuses. Campus representatives described local recruitment and retention strategies, including early outreach to high school students, community college partnerships, guaranteed admission programs, and expanded advising and student support. San Diego State highlighted record enrollment and high demand, while Cal State L.A. described efforts to recover from impaction and rebuild enrollment. Members pressed CSU officials on the accuracy of enrollment data, the gap between funded targets and actual enrollment, and the system’s reallocation formula. CSU staff explained that campuses below target will see a 5% ongoing reallocation beginning in 2026-27, with one-time reserve funding also being directed to campuses that can grow, and that fiscal health reviews have been completed for 21 of 22 campuses. Legislators also asked about turnaround plans required by the budget act; CSU said those plans are being developed and will be shared in the spring after campus consultation. No formal votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's been a lot of discussion locally.
• Representative Lujan, we are discussing Fair later. We are Thank you, Madam Chair.
• On the next slide, I'll also discuss how Soil and Waters are a very unique entity.
• And that was discussed with the LFC last week, as you know. Thank you, Madam Chair.
• I just want to follow up a little bit on Representative Vincent's discussion.

Committee: House Water & Natural Resources Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• We're still in discussions with that.
• We're still in discussions with that.
• We're still in discussions with that.
• We're still in discussions with that.
• We're still in discussions with that.

Committee: Senate Agriculture, Veterans, Broadband, and Rural Development - Subcommittee on Veterans

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And just, I have that discussion.
• And just, I have that discussion.
• And just, I have that discussion.
• And just, I have that discussion.
• And just, I have that discussion.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee work session of the Education Policy and Administration Committee focused on House Bill 131 and House Bill 781, which were described as nearly identical bills addressing student cell phone use in schools. Members noted that HB 781 is an early bill and therefore needed committee action by Wednesday, while HB 131 did not face that deadline. The chair and members discussed the bills’ shared goal of requiring school boards to develop and adopt policies on student personal device use, with debate over whether the state should set minimum standards or leave more to local control. A major topic was funding. One member urged the committee to avoid creating an unfunded mandate and asked for some funding support, while others argued it was too early to commit money and that the committee should first establish the policy framework. The governor’s proposed funding was discussed, including a $1 million figure in the budget and a separate $250,000 amount referenced in the bill, but several members said the money would likely be insufficient to cover all students or pouch systems statewide. The committee also reviewed a handout reflecting proposed budget language that would require school boards to adopt policies on personal device use during the school day, with schoolwide implementation and exceptions for medical disability or language proficiency needs, and a DOE-administered grant program. Members spent considerable time on drafting details, especially deadlines and exceptions. They debated whether the bills should require school boards to “develop,” “adopt,” or also “implement” policies, and whether the effective date of the act should also serve as the deadline for school boards. They also discussed whether exceptions for classroom instructional use should be mandatory or merely encouraged, and whether the bills should explicitly include or exclude charter schools. Additional proposed exceptions included IEPs, 504 plans, English learners, and medical needs such as glucose sensors or insulin pumps, with some members suggesting medical issues be certified by a physician. No final vote or formal action was taken in the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> important to this committee's discussion important to this committee's discussion on<00:08:32.320
• </c> right of a parent that we're discussing right of a parent that we're discussing today<00:29:36.000
• </c><01:18:49.840><c> on</c> think we need to have this discussion on think we need to have this discussion
• Chair West said, "Alrighty, seeing no further discussion, I appreciate the very thorough discussion we've
• </c><01:34:28.480><c> I</c> alrighty seeing no further discussion I alrighty seeing no further discussion

Bills: HF22 , HF45

Committee: House Children and Families Finance and Policy

Keywords: parent's bill of rights, parental rights, minor consent, minors, parents, guardians, education rights, school records, home schooling, charter school, private school, health care consent, medical privacy, patient records, exam room access, biometric data, DNA samples, blood samples, mental health, physical health

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, sorry, so this will not come to Division Three for a more in-depth discussion?
• We've discussed it, but we have not taken a formal position, and we have again not discussed this amendment
• Chairman, sorry, so this will not come to Division Three for a more in-depth discussion?
• We've discussed it, but we have not taken a formal position, and we have again not discussed this amendment
• discussion on it.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Committee held a hearing on House Bill 619, which would appropriate $1 million to the Solid Waste Management Fund for matching grants to municipalities and businesses for waste diversion projects, with 50% of the money prioritized for food waste diversion. Representative Karen Ebel, the sponsor, said the fund would help New Hampshire meet its solid waste diversion goals, preserve landfill capacity, and support composting, recycling, and related local business activity. She cited New London’s composting program as an example, saying 172 families participated and 32 tons of food waste were diverted in 2024, reducing tipping and trucking costs. Committee members asked about possible alternative funding sources, including a surcharge on landfill tipping fees. Ebel said many other states use such surcharges to fund recycling and solid waste programs, while New Hampshire relies on general funds. She also said the current fund balance was about $900,000 because some money had been used for staffing, and that the grant program was still in rulemaking. Questions also focused on how household composting works and whether municipalities could generate revenue from compost; Ebel said participation is optional, most programs use buckets and transfer stations, and the main benefit is cost savings from reduced disposal rather than compost sales. Testimony in support came from the New Hampshire Municipal Association and the Northeast Resource Recovery Association. Both said municipalities are interested in food waste diversion and composting, that these programs can reduce long-term disposal costs and property tax pressure, and that there is growing demand for technical assistance and grant support. The Northeast Resource Recovery Association said food waste makes up about 24% of municipal and business waste, that fewer than two dozen communities and fewer than two dozen businesses currently offer such services, and that a City of Lebanon pilot program saw about 30% savings by composting on site. The Department of Environmental Services said it was not taking a position but is working on rulemaking for the grant program and expects strong interest from municipalities, private composters, farmers, and anaerobic digester operators. No vote or final action was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:22:29.240><c> to</c><00:22:29.440><c> be</c> disc discussion to be disc discussion to be independent
• Okay, any discussion? Seems fairly straightforward.
• Yeah, I'll do that to discuss that, see them tomorrow.
• Yeah, I'll do that to discuss that, see them tomorrow.
• Yeah, I'll do that to discuss that, see them tomorrow.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard from the Personnel Appeals Board, which explained that it became an independent state agency after Senate Bill 487 and was presenting its first standalone operating budget. The board described its quasi-judicial role in hearing appeals from classified state employees over disciplinary actions such as warnings, suspensions, and terminations, and said it handles about 25 to 35 cases a year, with some cases lasting longer because of their complexity. Members also outlined the need for a chair and vice chair who are attorneys, the board’s current staffing and space needs, and its plan to move away from reliance on Administrative Services for office support and website functions. The board requested about $353,500 for fiscal year 2026, including startup costs, routine operating expenses, and two new part-time positions: a program director and a paralegal. Members said the budget reflects the new independent status, includes funding for only four board members rather than the authorized five, and is designed to avoid full-time staffing costs and benefits. Legislators asked about the cost per case, the board’s relationship to DAS, whether appeals must go through the board before court, and how often cases are appealed further. The board said appeals must first go through it, that court appeals are infrequent but have increased recently, and that the board’s process is intended to resolve disputes more quickly and less expensively than court litigation. Committee members also asked about the board’s caseload, outcomes, and staffing. The board said that in the prior year there were 22 cases, with four decisions overturned in favor of employees, nine dismissals, and nine settlements, and that many disputes are resolved before reaching the board through a multi-step internal process. A member noted the governor and council had recently approved a new board member and were expected to approve a fifth soon. The discussion ended with questions about the board’s website and records access, which members said would need to be moved from Administrative Services as part of the agency’s transition. The committee then moved to the New Hampshire Council on Developmental Disabilities. The executive director explained that the council is 100 percent federally funded under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act and develops a five-year plan to address the needs of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. She said the council works with state agencies and advocacy organizations on quality-of-life issues, accessibility, voter rights training, and plain-language or easy-to-read materials, and that 60 percent of its membership must be individuals with disabilities or family members/guardians. She also described the council’s funding structure, including reimbursement to the state for operating costs, and noted that it currently has three full-time and three part-time positions, with no new positions requested but one full-time position being eliminated and replaced after a pandemic-era staffing change did not work out as planned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we have any further discussion?
• Any further discussion?
• </c> discussion together on that. discussion together on that.
• ><c> and</c> Uh, the commission discussed and Uh, the commission discussed and gathered<01:20:46.480>
• </c> just been discussing just been discussing &gt;&gt; and<02:53:46.240><c> uh</c><02:53:46.399><c>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The commission meeting focused on reviewing and correcting draft minutes and then working through a draft report on the cost of special education. Members made mostly clerical corrections, including clarifying references to Spalding, fixing acronyms such as LETRS, and cleaning up membership titles and appointee roles to match SB 57. The minutes were approved as amended, with some members abstaining because they were not present at the prior meeting. The chair also noted the commission’s deadline to complete findings and recommendations by July 1 and said the final report must be delivered to legislative leaders, the governor, the state librarian, and others. The main substantive discussion centered on the report’s findings about special education funding. Members agreed the report should emphasize that the commission was created to study the cost of special education and reduce reliance on local property taxes. One draft section described FY24 special education funding as coming from three primary state and federal sources totaling about $152 million, or roughly 15% of annual costs, with the remaining 85% paid by local school districts through property tax revenue, estimated at about $825 million. Members discussed adding historical or longitudinal data to show trends over time, and some suggested attaching charts or tables showing funding over the last 20 to 30 years. A second major topic was demographic data. The draft noted that statewide K-12 enrollment has declined since 2003 while the number and share of students with IEPs has increased. Members questioned whether the data compared like with like, especially given the growth of Education Freedom Accounts and charter school enrollment, and whether the figures included or excluded those students. Several members asked for clearer sourcing from the Department of Education and suggested keeping a list of unresolved questions, including the impact of the shift from ADMA to ADMR and the effect of the EFA program. The discussion ended with agreement to continue refining the report and to gather additional attachments and clarifications before finalizing recommendations.