Transcript Highlights:

• District legislative aides to come and go to the legislative session for 30 or 60 days.
• legislative aides.
• by the legislators?
• Legislators, all right.
• of legislators.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any further discussion? Voting no. Is there any further discussion?
• Is there any discussion?
• Is there any discussion?
• Is there any discussion?
• Discussion.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer, pledge, roll call, and a quorum present, then approved a motion to lay over House Bill 1525 for one legislative day. It also voted not to concur with House amendments on Senate Bills 2294, 2297, 2070, 4017, and 2262, appointing conference committees for each. The chamber then took up a series of House bill amendments and final-passage votes. On amendments, the Senate adopted changes to House Bill 1229 on fleeing law enforcement and driving-record transparency after debate over insurance impacts and public safety; House Bill 1510 on teacher retention, on-site child care, and licensure study language; House Bill 1160 to restrict student personal electronic devices during instructional time; House Bill 1429 to address drone harassment and stalking of animals; House Bill 1203 to harmonize medical marijuana provisions; House Bill 1600 to create a UND immigration clinic with reporting requirements; House Bill 1130 to broaden K-12 funding formula changes and reduce state fiscal impact; House Bill 1279 to modify the coal conversion tax exemption; House Bill 1442 to adjust membership and scope of a state task force; and House Bill 1464 to convert a maternal care services proposal into a study and remove the appropriation. The Senate rejected an amendment to House Bill 1022 concerning the Retirement and Investment Office bonus program, then passed the bill. It also passed House Bill 1234 on a $90 million transfer to reduce PERS liability, while rejecting a floor amendment to it. On final passage, the Senate passed House Bills 1008 (Public Service Commission budget), 1218 (temporary moratorium and study on economic analysis for drain projects), 1234 (PERS funding transfer), 1146 (PERS defined contribution cleanup and emergency clause), 1355 (expanded notice for administrative rulemaking), 1470 (Game and Fish fee changes and guide/outfitter updates), 1029 (Capital Grounds Planning Commission duties), 1017 (Game and Fish budget), 1374 (township supervisor open-meeting exemption for on-site inspections), and 1064 (NC-SARA membership and distance education regulation). It defeated House Bill 1583 on false political advertisements with civil-action language and House Bill 1393 on earned wage access provider regulation. The transcript ends as the Senate begins consideration of House Bill 1326 on self-defense and unlawful firearm possession by felons.

Transcript Highlights:

• No, he does not care to discuss the motion to find this bill inexpedient to legislate.
• Is there discussion on the motion to find House Bill 574 inexpedient to legislate?
• Further discussion on the motion of Vice Chair to legislate on House Bill 574.
• Is there discussion on the motion to make House Bill 618 inexpedient to legislate? Yes.
• Is there discussion on the motion to inexpedient to legislate on House Bill 160?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The memo discussed general security best practices for legislators.
• He noted that they had discussed this in the context of legislators receiving threatening communications
• We had 86 legislators, current legislators, January.
• We had 86 legislators, current legislators participate in it for a 61% rate.
• He also said they have the best practices for legislator security that they have discussed, and he could

Summary: The Legislative Procedure and Arrangements Committee met with a quorum, approved the prior minutes, and then took up a draft bill to make legislators’ and candidates’ residential addresses confidential in public records. Legislative Council and the Secretary of State explained the proposal was prompted by security concerns and would protect residential addresses while still allowing election officials to verify residency and keep candidate names and offices public. Members raised concerns about unintended consequences, transparency, and how the change would affect rural districts and residency enforcement. The Secretary of State suggested an amendment to end the confidentiality when a candidate’s term ends, and the committee agreed to hold the bill over for further discussion at the next meeting. The committee also reviewed follow-up materials on legislator security and best practices, including advice on situational awareness, internet hygiene, varying routines, and reporting threats, along with NCSL materials comparing capitol security practices in other states. Members discussed a recent security incident and the need to keep alert contact information current, and staff said they would continue working with the Highway Patrol on legislative-specific notifications. The bulk of the meeting was devoted to Garrity Consulting’s final report on mitigating the effects of legislative term limits. The consultants summarized survey, focus group, and stakeholder input showing concerns about loss of institutional knowledge, leadership turnover, onboarding demands, and workload pressures, while also noting public support for term limits and annual sessions. Recommendations included considering annual sessions or shifting biennial sessions to even-numbered years, restructuring organizational session and interim committee work, creating office hours and more structured orientation and mentorship, expanding ongoing training and staff support, improving public communication and virtual testimony rules, and addressing barriers to service such as employer support and travel costs. Members discussed the tension between making the legislature more effective and preserving a citizen-legislature model, and the report was received as a roadmap for future implementation rather than immediate action.

Transcript Highlights:

• we're discussing now?
• And first off, I fully acknowledge that the cost share discussion—we’re having some tough discussions
• Is this something we need to discuss broadly as a State Water Commission policy discussion?
• Is this something we need to discuss broadly as a state water commission policy discussion?
• So that was part of the discussion.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , legislator capacity, one in their admissible. acts, one in legislators, legislator capacity, one in
• And when you made that offer, were there discussions back and forth about how a legislator would work
• Was there a legislative nexus between your discussion with Chris Stanley and...
• Is there a legislative nexus between your discussion with Chris Stanley and what?
• Do you regard your discussion with Chris Stanley as something you performed in your legislative role?

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The hearing resumed on day two of the Legislative Ethics Board fact-finding matter involving Representative Tara Simmons. After opening remarks and confirmation that board members had not engaged in outside research or ex parte communications, Simmons’s counsel moved to dismiss two allegations at the close of the board staff’s case: that Simmons pressured the Administrative Office of the Courts to alter a contract in favor of her employer, and that she improperly combined a legislative proviso for AEJG with a personal donation to the organization. Board staff opposed the motion, arguing the evidence showed Simmons’s legislative and private conduct were intertwined and that the board had enough evidence to require a defense. After deliberation, the board denied the motion to dismiss and proceeded to hear defense testimony. The first defense witness, Sharon Navas, testified that she met Simmons through advocacy work, later hired her at the Equity and Education Coalition (EEC), and maintained written employment policies intended to separate Simmons’s legislative role from her work for EEC. Navas said Simmons was never compensated for lobbying or legislative acts, that EEC paid her from unrestricted funds, and that Simmons did not work on the AEJG dashboard project or participate in the contract dispute with Anthony Powers and Chris Stanley. Navas described the proviso request and later contract issues as separate from Simmons’s legislative duties, and said she continued to pay invoices while the project was being completed. Simmons then testified about her background, legislative career, disability accommodations, and extensive efforts to seek ethics advice before taking outside employment or pursuing provisos. She said she repeatedly consulted House ethics counsel and reviewed prior board decisions to ensure her outside work and legislative actions were separated. Simmons described her relationship with Anthony Powers, the dashboard project, the proviso process, and her understanding that the work was distinct from her legislative role. The hearing paused for lunch after part of Simmons’s direct examination, with testimony set to continue after the break.

Transcript Highlights:

• Discussion on the title.
• Discussion on House Amendment 1. Discussion... On the gentleman's amendment.
• Further discussion. Further discussion on House Amendment No. 6.
• It discusses issues.
• It discusses issues.

Summary: The House convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then approved the House Journal by roll call vote, 120-0. Members also suspended House Rule 98 to allow hats on the chamber floor, approving that motion 87-32. The chamber then recognized several special guests and personal introductions, including the Eugene High School basketball team, family members of members, and other visitors. One member delivered a lengthy personal privilege speech responding to a U.S. Supreme Court voting-rights decision and urging protection of democracy and voting access. In committee reports, the House received favorable reports on substitute House Bill 2426 and Senate Bills 866 and 863. The chamber then agreed to a conference on the property-tax omnibus package, Senate Bills 1066 and 1088. On third reading, House Bill 3329 passed 142-0, repealing expired tax credits, and House Bill 3405 passed 138-0, cleaning up SALT deduction language and clarifying it as a deduction rather than a credit. House Committee Substitute for House Bill 2426, a parental-rights bill, was debated at length with opposition focused on its school reporting and financial-ledger provisions, but the motion to pass it failed 70-60. The House then took up Senate Bill 1233, a licensure bill dealing with CPA licensing and other professional licensing provisions. One amendment removing compacts and related language was adopted, a nursing-home physicals amendment was withdrawn, and the bill passed 129-6. Senate Bill 1408, originally a highway-speed bill, was heavily amended to remove some Department of Revenue and other provisions, while adding or revising items including vehicle inspections, motorcycle lighting, hands-free enforcement, driver education, and specialty plates for women’s professional sports; it passed 82-53. The final bill of the day, Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill 863, creating a five-member interscholastic athletic oversight commission for appeals from statewide activities associations, was introduced and debated, with questions raised about its relationship to MSHSAA.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> Any<00:15:56.560> discussion<00:15:57.040> on<00:15:57.279> these<00:15
• :57.600> items<00:15:58.079> beginning >> Any discussion on these items beginning
• Any discussion? Members, we will be taking a voice vote. All those in favor say aye.
• Any discussion? Members, we will be taking a voice vote. All those in favor say aye.
• Members and legislative staff, we're very excited to announce that the order links for House jackets

Bills: HB1974, HB1853, HB1973, HB1574, HB2619, HB1966, HB1643, HB1671, HB2558, HB1854, HB2173, HB1575, HB2229, HB1535, HB1978, HB2508, HB1549, HB2187, HB1550, HB1977, HB2314, HB1871, HB2319, HB1591, HB1858, HB1898, HB2372, HB1765, HB2012, HB1706, HB1962, HB1963, HB1975, HB2009, HB2083, HB2224, HB1877, HB1959, HB1626, HB1665, HB2488, HB2456, HB2548, HB2207, HB1832, HB2079, HB1985, HB1618, HB2486, HB2242, HB2045, HB1703, HB2236, HB2480, HB1976, HB2287, HB2288, HB1777, HB276, HB1660, HB1676, HB1605, HB1751, HB1967, HB2383, HB2340, HB1946, HB2268, HB1950, HB2156, HB2118, HB1859, HB1863, HB1996, HB2114, HB2423, HB2429, HB2475, HB2534, HB2545, HB1813, HB1941, HB2474, HB2583, HB1576, HB1886, HB1939, HB2540, HB2590, HB2000, HB2163, HB2386, HB1691, HB1680, HB2516, HB1993, HB2442, HB1510, HB1958, HB1692

Keywords: HB1974, hearing loss, audiology, audiologist, hearing screening, hearing aids, cochlear implants, tele-audiology, communication access, assistive technology, speech-language pathology, deafness, hard of hearing, public health, kupuna, keiki, dementia, cognitive decline, fall prevention, State Health Planning and Development Agency

Transcript Highlights:

• abatement law uh which I just discussed abatement law uh which I just discussed uh<00:46:42.160>
• oversight and recent legislative oversight and recent legislative changes.<01:10:10.640> So
• discussions.
• <01:40:35.920> discussions.
• um legislative discussions. um legislative discussions.

Bills: HB1974, HB1853, HB1973, HB1574, HB2619, HB1966, HB1643, HB1671, HB2558, HB1854, HB2173, HB1575, HB2229, HB1535, HB1978, HB2508, HB1549, HB2187, HB1550, HB1977, HB2314, HB1871, HB2319, HB1591, HB1858, HB1898, HB2372, HB1765, HB2012, HB1706, HB1962, HB1963, HB1975, HB2009, HB2083, HB2224, HB1877, HB1959, HB1626, HB1665, HB2488, HB2456, HB2548, HB2207, HB1832, HB2079, HB1985, HB1618, HB2486, HB2242, HB2045, HB1703, HB2236, HB2480, HB1976, HB2287, HB2288, HB1777, HB276, HB1660, HB1676, HB1605, HB1751, HB1967, HB2383, HB2340, HB1946, HB2268, HB1950, HB2156, HB2118, HB1859, HB1863, HB1996, HB2114, HB2423, HB2429, HB2475, HB2534, HB2545, HB1813, HB1941, HB2474, HB2583, HB1576, HB1886, HB1939, HB2540, HB2590, HB2000, HB2163, HB2386, HB1691, HB1680, HB2516, HB1993, HB2442, HB1510, HB1958, HB1692

Keywords: HB1974, hearing loss, audiology, audiologist, hearing screening, hearing aids, cochlear implants, tele-audiology, communication access, assistive technology, speech-language pathology, deafness, hard of hearing, public health, kupuna, keiki, dementia, cognitive decline, fall prevention, State Health Planning and Development Agency

Transcript Highlights:

• , legislator capacity, one in their admissible. acts, one in legislators, legislator capacity, one in
• And when you made that offer, were there discussions back and forth about how a legislator would work
• legislative assistant and put on my legislative calendar.
• Was there a legislative nexus between your discussion with Chris Stanley and— Is there a legislative
• Do you regard your discussion with Chris Stanley as something you performed in your legislative role?

Summary: The hearing resumed in the Legislative Ethics Board matter involving Tara Simmons after the board confirmed no ex parte communications had occurred overnight. Respondent’s counsel moved to dismiss two allegations at the close of the board staff’s case: that Simmons pressured the Administrative Office of the Courts to alter a contract in favor of her employer, and that she violated ethics rules by combining legislative support for AEJG with a personal donation to the organization. Board staff opposed the motion, arguing the evidence showed Simmons’s legislative and personal dealings were intertwined. After a recess for deliberation, the board denied the motion to dismiss, and the hearing moved into the defense case. The first defense witness was Sharon Navas, executive director of the Equity and Education Coalition (EEC). Navas testified that she met Simmons in 2018, later hired her, and took steps to separate Simmons’s legislative duties from her work for EEC. She said Simmons was never paid for lobbying or legislative acts, that her compensation came from unrestricted funds, and that the organization used written ethics-compliance language and a formal scope of work. Navas also described the proviso-funded dashboard project involving Anthony Powers and Chris Stanley, testifying that Simmons was not involved in the project’s day-to-day work, did not attend the meetings about the dispute, and was not part of the alleged contract disagreement. On cross-examination, staff focused on the contract documents, the dashboard work, and whether the scope of work matched the parties’ understanding. Tara Simmons then testified in her own defense. She described her background, legislative career, disability accommodations, and extensive efforts to seek ethics guidance from House counsel and board-related materials before taking outside employment or supporting provisos. She said she relied on prior ethics advice when separating her legislative role from outside work and when seeking provisos for AEJG and EEC. Simmons also addressed her relationship with Anthony Powers, describing it as a friendship rooted in criminal justice reform work and prior collaboration. The hearing was still in the middle of Simmons’s direct testimony when the transcript excerpt ended, with no final ruling on the merits or disposition of the allegations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Discussion on the title.
• Discussion on the legislation, gentlemen from Taney County. Thank you, Mr.
• It has to be in the same legislation.
• We had some really good discussion.
• Further discussion, gentleman from Cooper. Further discussion, gentleman from Cooper.

Summary: The House began with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, approval of the prior day’s journal by roll call vote (117-5), and a long series of guest introductions, including school groups, YouthBuild students, sorority members, interns, and former legislators. The chamber then moved to third reading business and took up House Committee Substitute for House Bills 3283 and 3306. The sponsor explained the bill needed to be sent back for legislative review because of possible conflict with current case law involving arbitration and municipal authority. The House agreed to reconsider and then committed the substitute to the Committee on Legislative Review by recorded votes of 99-43 and 98-43, respectively. The House next considered House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 982, which revises Missouri’s sex offender registry system. The sponsor said the bill responds to concerns raised after the 2018 registry overhaul and litigation, and would move Missouri from a hybrid system to a clearer tier-based structure, standardize registration requirements, address out-of-state offenders, and include related provisions on civil commitment housing, name changes, and carnival employees. Members asked whether the bill would allow offenders to petition off the registry; the sponsor said it would streamline removal for those who meet tier requirements and align the state system more closely with federal SORNA standards. The House adopted the committee substitute and passed the bill 141-4. The chamber then debated House Joint Resolutions 173 and 174, which would send to voters a constitutional change aimed at eliminating the state income tax over time and shifting Missouri toward a broader consumption-tax model. Supporters argued the proposal would improve economic competitiveness, attract businesses and residents, give taxpayers more control, and reduce reliance on income taxes that they described as burdensome to working families. Opponents argued it would shift costs onto lower- and middle-income Missourians, seniors, and people on fixed incomes, and warned it could raise sales taxes and reduce funding for schools, health care, and other services. No final vote on the resolution was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• we're discussing now, that local funding source would still remain in place as a potential discussion
• That is still open for discussion when we talk some of these issues that we're discussing now, that local
• And first off, I fully acknowledge that the cost share discussion—we're having some tough discussions
• Is this something we need to discuss broadly as a State Water Commission policy discussion?
• So that was part of the discussion.

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met to review several interim studies and receive updates from the Department of Water Resources. The committee approved the March 26, 2026 minutes, observed a moment of silence for the late Representative Conmy, and welcomed Representative Hansen to the committee. Staff then reported that the watershed management study and the stormwater/wastewater study had both satisfied the presentation requirements in their study directives, with no further required testimony unless members wanted additional information. The department’s main presentation focused on major water projects and agency operations. Reese Haas and staff updated members on the NAWS project, the Southwest Pipeline Project, Devils Lake outlet operations, low-head dam safety work, floodplain management repository implementation, data center water use, and the 2027 Water Development Plan. Members asked detailed questions about NAWS funding sources, remaining project costs, capacity concerns for All Seasons and other users, and whether current construction is being designed for future demand. The department said NAWS remains on track for substantial completion by October, that remaining NAWS funding will come from a mix of federal, state, and local sources, and that current construction is designed for ultimate capacity while some future components will be adjusted for increased demand. A large portion of the meeting was devoted to the department’s cash management, Resources Trust Fund revenues, carryover balances, and the State Water Commission’s cost-share program. The department reported $340.6 million in carryover remaining, explained that much of it is already obligated to long-term projects, and noted that oil price forecasts and stripper-well exemptions will affect future revenues. Members raised concerns about large carryovers, affordability for local sponsors, and whether the state should continue obligating money multiple bienniums ahead. The department said it is working with the commission on a revised prioritization framework, including high/moderate/low project categories and a two-tier pre-construction/construction approach, to better manage obligations and affordability. The committee also reviewed Deloitte’s finalized studies on regional governance/finance and cost-share policy. Deloitte presented options for Southwest, NAWS, and Red River governance, with stakeholders generally favoring keeping NAWS largely as is, using the current Southwest model with improvements, and pursuing a more structured governance option for Red River. On cost share, the department said Deloitte’s recommended package would cover projected needs through the 2030s, but would require policy changes such as lower percentages for some project types, a 25% replacement-project rate with a cap, and possible bonding or delayed reimbursement strategies. No votes were taken on these policy questions, and the chair indicated the committee would continue the discussion at future basin meetings and the September Water Topics meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Discussion, Mr. Ghan. Yes, Mr.
• Discussion, Mr. Ghan. Yes, Mr.
• these discussions.
• So I look forward to hearing our recommendations come from legislative council and then us discussing
• So I look forward to hearing our recommendations come from legislative council and then us discussing

Summary: The task force reviewed survey results from state agencies on potential statutory revisions, with Levi reporting 70 proposals from 20 agencies and noting that about 33 might become agency pre-file bills. Members discussed the need to share the survey more broadly within higher education and to better coordinate issues involving IT and other cross-agency functions. The task force then heard from the Office of Management and Budget on three topics: concessions, architect/engineering pre-qualification, and legal notices. OMB said the concessions law is outdated and inconsistent with current practice, and suggested a collaborative rewrite to allow best-value evaluation, raise the threshold, and standardize solicitation templates. On architect/engineering pre-qualification, OMB proposed expanding authority beyond current state-agency limits and creating uniform templates. On legal notices, OMB proposed modernizing publication requirements, exploring online and abbreviated notices, and working with newspapers and other stakeholders on technology and accessibility improvements. Members asked about where concession revenues go, whether political subdivisions must follow the same rules, and how to move from discussion to action. The task force agreed to have OMB work with Legislative Council and affected stakeholders to develop bill drafts, and the motion passed unanimously. The University of North Dakota then presented a series of proposed revisions focused on public buildings and procurement. UND asked to rework the definition of construction so routine maintenance and one-for-one replacements over $250,000 would not automatically trigger public-improvement requirements, suggested raising the threshold to $500,000, and asked for more flexibility based on project complexity and risk. UND also proposed changes to public bid advertisements to reflect electronic bidding, revisions to construction manager-at-risk selection criteria, changes to architect/engineer procurement rules, an increase in the direct-hire design threshold, and a higher legislative-consent threshold for privately funded projects. The task force supported having UND work with counsel and OMB to develop bill drafts, and that motion also passed. The Department of Public Instruction concluded with proposed cleanup to credentialing and education statutes. DPI recommended reviewing its credential categories for relevance, possibly transferring credentialing authority to the Education Standards and Practices Board, removing outdated school safety patrol language, clarifying waiver provisions, and updating dyslexia screening reporting requirements so the statute reflects current practice. Members focused mainly on whether the dyslexia reporting requirement should remain, and DPI said the screening itself would continue even if reporting language were revised. No votes were taken on DPI’s suggestions, and the task force recessed after the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any further discussion?
• Is there any further discussion?
• Is there any further discussion?
• Legislative measures to introduce legislation.
• Is there any further discussion? Yes vote or your aye vote. Is there any further discussion?

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, roll call, and a quorum present, then moved through a series of conference committee appointments and reconsideration motions. Senator Axtman successfully moved to reconsider House Bill 1160, which had previously failed, and the chamber later passed it. HB 1160 creates a statewide bell-to-bell policy restricting personal electronic devices during instructional time; supporters argued it would reduce distractions, improve mental health and academic outcomes, and help teachers, while opponents raised local control concerns. The bill passed 42-4. The Senate also passed several other measures, including HB 1247 on protecting student victims of sexual offenses, HB 1489 consolidating civil protection orders into one chapter, HB 1032 making municipal courts courts of record and updating related procedures, HB 1487 authorizing a Minot facility for the Highway Patrol and Bureau of Criminal Investigation with a line of credit and emergency clause, HB 1469 requiring annual online statements of interest for public officials, HB 1199 creating the Missing and Indigenous People Task Force and related MMIP initiatives, HB 1169 regulating paid veterans benefits claim assistance with consumer protections, HB 1209 directing a foreign adversary threat assessment, and HB 3018 as amended to study water, wetlands, and taxation of inundated lands. Most of these passed with strong bipartisan support, though HB 1169 drew substantial debate over veterans’ service options and HB 1209 passed on a narrower 40-7 vote. The chamber rejected or declined several other measures. HB 1455, which would have required the Indian Affairs Commission to review introduced legislation for tribal implications, failed 7-40 after concerns about an unfunded mandate and duplicative duties. HB 1259, which would have put North Dakota on year-round daylight saving time, was defeated 15-32 after debate over time zones, construction, recreation, and whether the issue should be left to future legislatures. HB 1555, dealing with statements of ownership for foreign organizations of concern, also failed 3-44. The Senate then moved to announcements and committee scheduling for later meetings and conference committees.

Transcript Highlights:

• we're discussing now?
• And first off, I fully acknowledge that the cost share discussion, we're having some tough discussions
• Is this something we need to discuss broadly as a State Water Commission policy discussion?
• So then we'd be ready for legislative session for any legislative action items that would need to happen
• So that was part of the discussion.

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met to receive interim status updates on several water-related studies and Department of Water Resources projects. The committee approved the March 26, 2026 minutes, observed a moment of silence for the late Representative Conmy, and then heard updates on the watershed management study and the stormwater/wastewater study. Staff reported that the committee had already received the testimony contemplated in the study plans, including input from state agencies, local governments, and out-of-state entities, and that any further action would be at the committee’s discretion. The Department of Water Resources then provided project and budget updates on NAWS and the Southwest Pipeline Project. Reese reported NAWS is expected to serve about 81,000 users, with a total projected cost of about $571 million and about $96 million remaining, while the Southwest Pipeline Project is estimated at $1.06 billion total with about $409 million remaining. Members asked about funding sources, capacity needs, and whether current and future construction is being designed for increased demand; department staff said current work is designed for ultimate capacity, but some future components may need redesign based on new requests. The committee also discussed local cost shares, Minot’s role in NAWS funding, and whether the system is adequate for peak demand. A major portion of the meeting focused on the department’s cash management, carryover, and long-term water funding outlook. The department said Resources Trust Fund revenues are tied to oil extraction taxes and are affected by stripper well exemptions and future oil price declines. Members expressed concern about large carryover balances and whether the state is obligating more money than can realistically be spent in a biennium. The department reported about $340.6 million in remaining carryover and said it is trying to reduce that through a two-tier pre-construction/construction process and closer project vetting. The department also summarized the Deloitte studies on regional governance and finance and on cost-share policy. Stakeholders generally favored keeping the current governance structures for NAWS and Southwest with improvements, while Red River stakeholders leaned toward a different option; the department said it will bring an implementation plan back in September. On cost share, Deloitte’s recommendations would reduce some percentages, prioritize projects differently, and use other measures to close a projected long-term funding gap. Members debated affordability, local burden, deferred maintenance, and whether statutory changes may be needed to allow the commission more flexibility in prioritizing and funding projects. No formal votes or final actions were taken beyond approving the minutes and receiving the updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:08:37.120> Discussion Thank you. Discussion further questions for Mr.
• You know, I discussed with Mr.
• You know, I discussed with Mr.
• You know, I discussed with Mr.
• discussion on that. discussion on that. >> Senator<00:16:00.959> Duro.

Keywords: 916, all

Summary: The Senate rules committee continued work on a proposed rule restricting campaign fundraising in the Capitol and during session or special session. Senator Nethercott and LSO attorney Mr. Shaw explained that the draft was revised to add clarity after concerns that the earlier language could unintentionally penalize a senator who merely received a contribution without affirmatively soliciting it. The committee discussed two options: option one, which would prohibit knowingly soliciting a contribution and accepting it by affirmative act, and option two, which would prohibit knowingly soliciting or accepting a legislative campaign contribution by affirmative act. A new subsection C was also added to make clear the rule would not apply when a senator merely discovers that a contribution was made and took no affirmative act to solicit or receive it. Members focused on how the term “solicit” should be understood, including whether a campaign website donate button or online promotion would count as solicitation. Mr. Shaw said the rule does not define the term and suggested it should be applied reasonably, noting that a static donate button may be treated differently from actively promoting donations. Several senators said subsection C addressed the main concern about accidental receipt of a mailed contribution, but that further guidance may still be needed on passive receipt and how to handle donations connected to pending legislation. Senator Duro said the committee was responding to an unacceptable incident that occurred in the building and wanted to make clear such conduct would not be tolerated. After discussion, Senator Rothfuss moved option two and Senator Gierau seconded. The committee voted to adopt option two, with Senators Gierau, Nethercott, Salazar, and Chairman Biteman voting aye; Senator Rothfuss also voted aye. The committee then adjourned, and it was noted that the adopted rule would become part of the permanent Senate rules unless changed at the start of a future session.

Transcript Highlights:

• the legislator to push or advance the employer's legislative agenda or to oppose legislation disfavored
• , to... ...and Representative Simmons to discuss, to initially discuss the 2024 proviso.
• Aside from discussing future ideas and future money, did you discuss any... ...discussing future ideas
• As a legislator. As a legislator.
• And is it normal for you to call legislators and ask them about legislation? Yes.

Summary: The hearing opened in a Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings matter involving Legislative Ethics Board complaint 2025-5 against Representative Tara Simmons. The ALJ outlined the process, the issues on appeal, and the burden of proof, which centered on whether Simmons violated the Ethics Act by using her legislative position for others’ benefit and by holding outside employment that conflicted with her duties, and what sanction would be appropriate. Several exhibits were admitted by stipulation or without objection, while Exhibit 2 was initially held for later ruling but was ultimately admitted after testimony from the witness who prepared it. The board also granted a motion to sequester witnesses and took under advisement a motion to exclude three defense witnesses until after the staff case-in-chief. In opening statements, board staff alleged Simmons violated RCW 42.52.020 and RCW 42.52.070 by sponsoring a proviso that benefited her outside employer, Equity and Education Coalition (EEC), by using campaign surplus funds to help hire a friend, by intervening in a dispute over the proviso-funded work, and by sending text messages to influence others. Staff said it would seek penalties of up to $5,000 per violation plus costs. Defense counsel argued the allegations were technical ethics issues, denied Simmons profited personally, and contended the proviso funding her employer was permitted under prior board guidance; counsel also argued the campaign donation and later contract dispute were lawful and context-dependent. The first witness, Kimberly Gordon of American Equity and Justice Group (AEJG), testified that AEJG received state proviso funding and donations from Simmons, including $10,000 and later $40,000, which Gordon said were intended to fund the hiring of Antoine Coleman, Simmons’s romantic partner. Gordon said AEJG returned the donations and terminated Coleman after learning of the relationship and potential conflict of interest. She also testified about a later 2024 proviso involving EEC, a subcontract between AEJG and EEC, and a dispute over EEC’s performance under that subcontract. Gordon said AEJG raised concerns with the Administrative Office of the Courts, met with contract manager Chris Stanley, and ultimately rewrote the subcontract after Stanley, allegedly after speaking with Simmons, directed them to do so. The hearing then recessed for lunch, and cross-examination of Gordon was set to continue afterward.

Transcript Highlights:

• Most of these are legislative council policy.
• That's actually in legislative council policy.
• cannot endorse or oppose legislation.
• Serious issues that deserve a full discussion.
• I've discussed this issue with several other, you know, legislative.

Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing no further discussion, 2594 please.
• Seeing no further discussion, 2594 please.
• Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion? Seeing none, 2482.
• Any further discussion?

Summary: The Republican caucus reviewed a long list of House bills with Senate amendments, mostly hearing brief staff summaries and sponsor comments on whether they concurred. Topics included tax filing penalties, water and court procedures, vaccination and mask rules, bullion investment, nursing care complaint timelines, privacy protections for property and voter records, medical-record access, professional licensing procedures, school and family law changes, public records access for legislators, AI procurement, fingerprint clearance for traffic survival school instructors, development fees, infrastructure districts, distracted driving penalties, health aide scope of practice, eviction record sealing, backyard structure rules in planned communities, inmate transition services, nuclear-ready community designation, DCS parent-rights notices, domestic-violence evidence standards, inmate mental health study committee, legislative subpoena enforcement, trade office oversight, public power reporting, Native American language proficiency, mental health judicial review timelines, mobile food vendor licensing, medical-intervention requirements in schools, and school board training and meeting transparency. In most cases, the sponsor or a representative indicated concurrence with the Senate amendments, and the caucus generally moved through the bills without extended debate. A few bills drew brief explanation from sponsors about the policy purpose, such as aligning nursing-facility oversight with federal requirements, improving access to medical records, clarifying rules for licensed health aides, and adjusting school-related provisions. Some bills were noted as being sent back to the Senate or otherwise set aside, including HB 2035 and HB 2249. No formal votes were taken in the transcript; the meeting functioned as a caucus review of Senate amendments and sponsor concurrence before floor action. The caucus concluded after HB 2380, with members thanked for attending.

Transcript Highlights:

• legislators potentially in district? legislators potentially in district?
• legislative representative body. legislative representative body.
• discussions would be similar. discussions would be similar.
• variety of legislator risk, frankly. variety of legislator risk, frankly.
• . legislation. legislation.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all