Transcript Highlights:

• What placement you have moving forward?
• Each county health department is expected to select 2 priority areas to address.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• inmate classification, housing, and we would strike through early release and change that to say placement
• I think you replaced early release with placement authority, placement authority and transitional services
• Would it fit under placement authority? Because wouldn't that be a factor in their placement?
• Management study for sentencing, corrections, and parole oversight, with the one correction on there for placement
• And you did get that change for placement authority instead of early release.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee discussed a draft amendment to consolidate two proposed studies into one Legislative Management study on sentencing, corrections, and parole oversight. Representative O’Brien explained that the revised language would cover the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s inmate classification, housing, placement authority, and transitional services, including work or educational release, while avoiding confusion over separate study proposals. Members also discussed whether issues such as earning good time, meritorious time, parole eligibility, and release decisions would be included; the chair and members concluded those topics would be covered under the parole board and related study language. Several members raised concerns about recidivism data, including the difficulty of counting people who are incarcerated in other states or in the federal system after release from North Dakota custody. Representative Murphy noted that DOCR appears to be using the best available national-study-based method, but that the data limitations remain a problem. The chair and others said the study should focus on what can be measured and that interagency communication is important, while Representative Burke noted that incorporating federal data would be difficult because comparable state-level data would be lacking. The committee then moved and approved the amended study language, with a technical correction changing “early release” to “placement authority.” The motion passed 8-0. The committee later took up further amendments to engrossed Senate Bill 2015, approved those amendments 8-0, and then passed engrossed Senate Bill 2015 as amended on an 8-0 roll call. Members briefly discussed a minimum security facility planning number, confirming the pad/landing number at 20, and the chair said the bill would be sent to Legislative Council for final drafting and could be ready as soon as the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will be focusing to begin with on this placement concern and the placement issues.
• <00:31:59.039> concern to begin with on this placement concern to begin with on this placement
• concern and<00:31:59.880> the<00:32:00.080> placement and the placement and the placement
• <00:53:09.359> with here that foster care placements with here that foster care placements
• So we're going to try Maria. placement how long does it take for a placement how long does it take for

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is their rate setting related to out-of-district placements that the state is paying for?
• some of the costs are much different compared to in-state placements.
• some of the costs are much different compared to in-state placements.
• So the out-of-district placements that are court-ordered placements or episodes of treatment are done
• Does it have to relate to the IEP, episodes of treatment, and the court-ordered placements?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first discussed HB 443, which would change terms and vacancy language for members of a higher education commission. Members raised concerns that the bill was too narrow to address broader issues with commission membership, including expired appointments, attendance expectations, and whether the Department of Education could replace the commission’s role. Several members suggested the bill was not ready for action and favored holding it for further work, possibly through a subcommittee or work session. One member suggested that if attendance standards were added, no more than two unexcused absences should trigger removal, given the commission’s meeting schedule. The chair said he would defer action and form a small subcommittee to report back before the committee deadline. The committee then moved to HB 484, dealing with repurposing Career and Technical Education classroom space after 20 years of exclusive use. The chair explained that the bill was aimed at the Milford CTE project, where shared use of space could allow a school to repurpose part of a CTE facility while still using it for CTE-related instruction. Members discussed other possible situations around the state, including Claremont, North Conway, and Jaffrey/Rindge, and whether the bill should be limited to Milford or broadened to allow local districts more flexibility. Some members favored passing the bill now to help CTE projects move forward, while others argued for an amendment removing the requirement that the space be vacated specifically to expand the CTE program occupying it. Testimony and discussion emphasized that the Milford project had state approval but reduced funding, requiring a smaller scope and repurposing of existing space. Supporters said the bill could help preserve CTE programs while also benefiting general education space needs, and that local districts should have flexibility after 20 years. Opponents or cautious members noted that the language might not fit every district situation and asked for feedback from Director Beard and Steve Rothenberg before final action. The committee did not take a final vote in the portion provided, and instead discussed waiting for an amendment and additional input before acting.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation
• The Claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation
• The Claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation
• The Claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation
• The Claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The Claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation
• The Claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation
• The Claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation
• The Claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation
• Happy to take questions. and placement on an appropriation bill.

Summary: The committee first reviewed several wage-claim and labor-related litigation reports from the Department of Labor and Licensing. Members questioned the department’s authority and jurisdiction, whether it was acting like a court, and why it sought attorney’s fees and costs. Department staff explained that the claims arose under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act and related labor statutes, that the department investigates small wage claims and can file suit when informal resolution fails, and that filing fees are waived by statute though service costs may be incurred. The committee reviewed individual cases, including one where the employer had not proven cash payments, another that had already been paid and dismissed, and a third where service could not yet be completed. The committee then voted to review or batch-file the labor items. The University of Arkansas System then reported on three pending lawsuits under the litigation-notification statute. One case involving a tenured professor alleging age and race discrimination had already been resolved and dismissed after the university re-engaged in discussions about a position. A second case involving a former employee alleging ADA and FMLA retaliation was moving forward after partial dismissal and an answer denying liability. A third case involved a former vendor employee alleging retaliation tied to a parking ticket; members asked about individual-capacity exposure for a university police sergeant, and counsel explained that punitive damages could potentially create personal exposure. The committee reviewed each report. The Department of Finance and Administration presented a proposed tax settlement reducing a sales-and-use tax assessment from about $48,000 to $20,000, with interest and penalties waived, and the committee approved it. The Claims Commission then presented several claims and settlements, including an unpaid salary differential for the Department of Health, reissued warrants, unpaid bills for DHS, and multiple negotiated settlements involving UAMS, Arkansas State Police, and ARDOT; these were generally approved or batched for approval. The most extensive discussion involved a settlement between the Teacher Retirement System and Tetronics International Limited in liquidation, arising from losses tied to the failed Blue Oak project; members questioned the company’s liquidation status, the prior investment loss, and why the matter was settling for $65,000, and the committee ultimately affirmed the settlement. The committee also heard a disputed tax-sale claim involving the Commissioner of State Lands, where a claimant argued that excess proceeds from a 2009 tax sale should have gone to her family rather than escheating to the county. After testimony from the claimant and counsel, members debated sovereign immunity, heirship, and whether the committee could or should award the $4,200 overage. The motion was amended and then replaced with a motion to hold the matter over for further review in a future joint session, which passed. Finally, the committee considered an appeal by Andrew Simpson challenging dismissal of his claim against the Arkansas Court of Appeals; after Simpson and court staff explained the underlying dispute, the committee reviewed the dismissal and the matter was held over for further consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• to staff is not necessarily worth the placement.
• <00:25:50.000> for for maybe an outofstate placement for for maybe an outofstate placement
• <00:27:20.720> facilities have lead to uh the placement facilities have lead to uh the placement
• So they're not all dried up, placement.
• <00:33:17.120> and that could have used uh placement and that could have used uh placement

Keywords: The original version of this live stream dropped before the meeting was technically finished. This is the complete copy pulled from back up sources., 958, all

Summary: The committee met to hear updates from the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Department of Corrections on two related issues: a proposed high-acuity juvenile mental health treatment facility and medical services contracts, including the impact of Wellpath’s bankruptcy proceedings. At the start, the chair agreed to hear the Department of Corrections first so members could get context on the medical contract before turning to DJJ’s proposal. DOC officials said Wellpath, the department’s comprehensive medical and mental health provider since 2013, was awarded its current contract through a 2021 procurement process. They reported that Wellpath’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan had been confirmed and that the company had transitioned ownership to lenders, but had not yet fully completed the bankruptcy process. DOC said there had been no service lapses, no reduction in care, and no known impact on Kentucky vendors or hospitals, and that DOC staff meet with Wellpath almost weekly. Members asked whether the committee had been kept informed and whether the bankruptcy could affect future services or subcontractors. DJJ then presented its concept for a high-acuity facility, explaining that the project is still in the preliminary programming and conceptual stage and has not yet entered the formal design phase with DECA. Officials said the proposal in the capital plan would create a 24-bed facility, with 16 clinical beds and 8 assessment/stabilization beds, to serve justice-involved youth with serious mental health needs. They said the facility would need to separate males and females and high- and low-risk youth, and that current placements often require sending youth out of state to places such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arkansas, and Texas. Staff said the goal is to centralize treatment, improve safety, and reduce the need for fragmented or out-of-state placements. Committee members questioned the cost estimates, staffing needs, and whether the facility was justified given the small number of youth currently placed out of state. DJJ said the operational estimate includes an unknown medical-contract component and that the number of youth needing the facility can fluctuate because of surges in the juvenile population. Officials also said they had consulted with South Carolina, which is developing a similar facility, and noted that renovating existing facilities was considered but could be more expensive or impractical than building a separate site. No votes or formal actions were taken during the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• The language was removed because it is unnecessary as DFA and CBC placements are required to be safe.
• And we're going to have more placements. Well, we were under court order, as you all know.
• CWOP placements, that there is no therapeutic value.
• We have done out-of-state placement because it was the best place for them to go.
• Let's find that kinship placement, let's find these other placements and not send them to a hotel room

Bills: SB437, SB528, SB626, SB636, SB884, SB968, SB1044, SB1608, SB2336

Keywords: healthcare, training, abuse, neglect, penalties, chemical dependency, safety, regulation, inpatient competency restoration, competency restoration, forensic mental health, mental health law, criminal competency, incompetent to stand trial, Chapter 46B, HHSC, Health and Human Services Commission, state hospital, behavioral health, local mental health authority

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll now renew my motion that Senate File 1959 as amended be recommended for placement on the general
• I will move Senate File 2298 to be recommended for placement on the general register.
• I'll now renew my motion that Senate File 2298 as amended be recommended for placement on the general
• recommended for placement on the general<00:03:47.080> register.
• The motion prevails and House File 2130 is recommended for placement in the general register.

Bills: SF1959, HF2444, SF2298, HF2445, SF2216, HF2443, HF2130, HF1943, HF2436, HF2442

Keywords: veterans, military affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Military Affairs, omnibus veterans bill, appropriations, National Guard, state active service, armory, State Armory Building Commission, veterans homes, veterans cemeteries, county veterans service office, Minnesota GI Bill, Gold Star families, Blue Star families, Secret War in Laos, Hmong veterans, Laos veterans, special guerrilla units

Transcript Highlights:

• 13.280> that<00:04:13.879> their<00:04:14.879> uh<00:04:15.120> path placement
• to ensure that their uh path placement to ensure that their uh path in<00:04:15.599> this<00:
• Career job placement is significant, with a three-year total of 134 people.
• <00:04:48.680> is<00:04:48.919> sign graduates career job placement is sign graduates
• career job placement is sign is<00:04:49.759> significant<00:04:50.560> with<00:04:50.680

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• YOU ALSO STAY IN DETENTION, POST ADJUDICATION UNTIL THEY HAVE AN APPROPRIATE PLACEMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL
• LIKE WHAT IS THE BEST PLACEMENT TO MEET THOSE NEEDS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS.
• WE ARE INFORMING PLACEMENT.
• OPTIMAL PLACEMENT AND PROPER PLACEMENT YOU WILL SEE A RANGE OF 19 TO 20% RECIDIVISM MEANING IT IS IMPORTANT
• LOOK AT ADVANCED PLACEMENT, MIDDLE SCHOOL ACCELERATION.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• disincentive for certain placement disincentive for certain placement decisions<00:26:30.159>
• <00:29:11.080> because need not on the placement because need not on the placement because
• a little off from our placement a little off from our placement Continuum<00:45:24.200> in
• restrictive environment placement restrictive environment placement Continuum<00:45:38.280> that
• So we deal with a lot of those cases for parents seeking out placements.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on HB 563, which would revise the education funding formula for pupils receiving special education services by replacing the current single special education amount with three differentiated categories. Representative Rick Ladd, the prime sponsor, said the bill largely tracks a House-passed version from the prior session with minor figure adjustments, and explained that the proposal uses projected FY26 amounts for three categories based on time in general education versus more intensive placements. He also noted that the bill does not address catastrophic aid directly, but that special education aid, CAT aid, and proration all remain issues for later work sessions. Ladd and supporters argued that weighted categories better reflect actual costs and are more sustainable than treating all IEPs the same. Representative Margaret Drye said the approach was one of the best ideas from the education funding subcommittee and urged the committee to support differentiated aid. Representative Ames asked how the category amounts were derived, and Ladd said Category A follows the FY26 base, Category B is a higher weight, and Category C is a still higher weight for more intensive services, though he acknowledged the exact multipliers were developed earlier and could be revisited. He also said the committee would continue discussing whether the weights are appropriate and how they interact with CAT aid. Testimony from Bonnie Dunham strongly opposed the bill. She argued that funding based on placement rather than actual service need would create incentives to move students into more restrictive settings, could stigmatize children with labels such as "Category C," and would undermine the least restrictive environment requirements under federal special education law. She described her son’s experience in inclusive settings as beneficial and said the bill would have penalized the district for serving him there. In response to questions, she said schools and parents should base funding on the child’s actual needs and costs, not on placement, and urged the committee to recommend the bill inexpedient to legislate.

Transcript Highlights:

• Their staff are the first line of work with our population in terms of helping with placements in the
• So when we start talking about placements, you walk Hill, the sheriff's department.
• So when we talk about placement... Placements in the Sheriff's Department.
• It's a lot of placement and a lot of investment and giving people opportunities.
• And housing placement, if you have that number.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Criminal Justice Reform 3.0 heard a presentation from the Massachusetts Parole Board focused on consolidation, cooperation, and evidence-based supervision across the correctional system. Parole Board Chair Angela Gomez-June described the board’s mission, its coordination with the Department of Correction, houses of correction, courts, probation, law enforcement, victim services, and UMass partners, and outlined 2024 activity including 2,810 institutional release hearings, 18,238 victim notifications, 53 pardon petitions, 70 commutation petitions, 41 early termination applications, and supervision of 2,993 parolees. She emphasized the board’s shift toward individualized, data-driven decision-making, including revised GPS use, graduated sanctions, and more service-oriented community supervision. Members and sheriffs pressed for clearer breakdowns of the board’s data, including the difference between releases, hearings, and active supervision; average length of supervision; the share of lifers in the caseload; and how many people are placed in housing, employment, and treatment. The board said its active supervised population fluctuates around 1,600 to 1,800, with more than 400 lifers, and that about 30 to 36 percent of its population is housed through programs such as MASH, community justice resource centers, and sheriff-run residential programs like Rocky Hill and HOPE. Members also discussed parole refusals, noting that some individuals decline parole to avoid supervision or to serve time inside instead, and asked for a more detailed breakdown of those cases. The board and commission also discussed collaboration with DOC and UMass on risk assessment, reentry planning, and community pathways, including a tablet video explaining the parole process and pharmacist support for medication-related drug test issues. The board reported that after the SJC’s Matus decision, 210 individuals were identified as affected, 144 were immediately eligible for hearings, 100 hearings had been completed, and 10 more were scheduled; it also said clemency and commutation work had been slowed by staffing and Matus-related demands. The meeting ended with a request for follow-up data on outcomes, supervision lengths, housing and employment placements, and other consolidated statistics, and the commission announced its next public hearing for March 9 at 10 a.m. before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• <02:13:26.679> of would be looking at selection of would be looking at selection of Charities
• regulation and placement regulation and placement and<02:18:07.599> size<02:18:08.120>
• about the community standards, the industry standards for granting charities, and how things are selected
• <02:23:53.000> for how things are how they are selected for how things are how they are selected
• process I it's clearly selection process I it's clearly important<02:24:17.000> to<02:24:17.200

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The public hearing focused on HB 290, which would raise cigarette and e-cigarette/vaping taxes and create a committee to study tobacco and nicotine tax policy. Representative Jerry Stringham introduced the bill as both a public health and revenue measure, arguing that nicotine use causes health harms and public costs, and that New Hampshire’s cigarette tax has been unchanged at $1.78 per pack since 2013. He said the bill would raise the cigarette tax by $1 per pack to $2.78, still below most New England states, and would also adjust vaping taxes, which he described as having been set as placeholder rates in 2019. He said the bill would also establish a study committee to review broader tobacco and nicotine taxation, including products such as premium cigars. In response to questions, Stringham said the proposed cigarette tax would be roughly equal in real dollars to the 2008 rate after inflation, and he suggested that a smaller annual increase could be considered, though he believed a larger increase would have a stronger public health effect. He explained that the vaping tax structure differs between closed and open systems because one taxes a fixed hardware product while the other taxes reusable liquid, and he said the proposal would move the rates toward a more uniform approach. He also said New Hampshire would remain below neighboring states even after the increase, though members raised concerns about cross-border shopping, business impacts, and preserving the state’s competitive advantage. Several members questioned whether the bill’s main purpose was revenue or reducing smoking and vaping. Stringham said he viewed it primarily as a public health bill, but also as a revenue measure, and said he would consider it successful even if consumption fell enough to reduce revenue. Other members emphasized personal freedom and argued the committee should focus on taxation rather than cessation, while some supported the bill as a way to capture revenue from out-of-state buyers and keep New Hampshire’s rates below surrounding states. The hearing consisted of testimony and questions only; no vote or final action was taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• for Minnesotans receiving cash assistance during a crisis, and prevents unnecessary foster care placements
• /c><00:01:54.600> care prevents unnecessary foster care prevents unnecessary foster care placements
• of children away from their placements of children away from their homes<00:01:57.000> and homes
• Slide 14 is supporting relative foster care and permanency placements.
• prevention and family re placement prevention and family re reunification<00:14:19.720> services<

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Health and Human Services committee heard a presentation from Department of Children, Youth, and Families Commissioner Tiki Brown on the department’s 2025 budget and transition plans. Brown said the governor’s budget pairs targeted reductions with modest investments, resulting in net general fund savings, while preserving core safety-net programs. Major proposals included funding for program integrity, modernization of the child welfare SSIS system, compliance changes for the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP), operating adjustments, and a transition account reallocation as the new department continues moving programs from other agencies through July 1, 2025. A large portion of the discussion focused on CCAP fraud prevention and oversight. Brown and Assistant Commissioner Diane Hy explained that the proposed statewide electronic attendance recordkeeping system would replace retroactive paper-based attendance reporting with more timely data, making it harder to falsify attendance and claim payments improperly. Brown also said the department is working with the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General and other partners on compliance and fraud controls. Senators pressed for more detail on current enforcement, whether payments can be withheld for violations, and whether recent media reports showed gaps in oversight; Brown said payments can be stopped for false attendance records, suspended or revoked licenses, or fraud allegations, but not for health and safety violations alone. The committee also reviewed other budget-neutral policy changes, including expanding permanency support services for relative foster care and tribal equivalents, strengthening tribal child welfare grants, updating TEACH scholarship rules for early childhood educators, and adjusting the Great Start Compensation Support Payment Program to create a special revenue fund and extend a 10% payment increase to tribally licensed programs and programs on tribal reservation land. Brown also described a $1.5 million annual reduction to restorative practices grants, leaving a smaller ongoing base. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And section 2 states that we're looking at the placements of the child, stating that each placement shall
• And you'll see that in placement system.
• of the child, looking at the placements of the child, hope<00:11:08.160> uh<00:11:08.520>
• stating<00:11:08.920> that<00:11:09.640> each<00:11:09.839> placement hope uh
• stating that each placement hope uh stating that each placement shall<00:11:10.440> meet<00:11

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Johnson moves that House Bill 1973 be recommended and certified for placement on the local and
• Senator Johnson moves that House Bill 2524 be recommended and certified for placement on the local and
• Senator Johnson moves that House Bill 2524 be recommended and certified for placement on the local and
• Senator Hughes moves that the committee substitute for House Bill 40 be recommended and certified for placement
• Um, Senator Hughes moves that the House Bill 3421 be recommended and certified for placement on the local

Bills: HB40, HB1916, HB1973, HB2524, HB2530, HB3180, HB3421, HB3783, HB4170, HB4213

Keywords: business court, civil procedure, litigation, jurisdiction, arbitration, divorce, property division, family law, court jurisdiction, marital assets, parent-child relationship, birth certificate, identity proof, Family Code, court process, attorney fees, court costs, legal expenses, dispute resolution, child support

Summary: The committee considered several House bills dealing with family law and civil procedure. House Bill 1916, concerning a court’s jurisdiction in suits to divide property not divided on dissolution of marriage, was reported favorably on a 4-0 vote and recommended for the local and uncontested calendar. House Bill 1973, addressing proof of the identity of a child’s parents in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, was also adopted with a committee substitute, reported favorably 4-0, and sent to the local and uncontested calendar. House Bill 2524, on recovery of fees, court costs, and expenses in family law proceedings, and House Bill 2530, on special appointments in suits affecting the parent-child relationship, each received favorable 4-0 votes and were likewise recommended for the local and uncontested calendar. The committee then took up House Bill 3180, which was reported favorably 4-0 and recommended for the local and uncontested calendar. The most detailed discussion centered on House Bill 40, relating to updates to business courts. Senator Hughes explained a committee amendment that made conforming changes requested by the Finance Committee and removed language creating two new judgeships, replacing it with a different judge allocation. The amendment was adopted, the amended committee substitute was adopted, and the bill was reported favorably on a 4-0 vote and sent to the local and uncontested calendar. At the end of the meeting, members briefly clarified procedural details about the House Bill 40 amendment and then closed out the agenda. The committee also noted a correction to an earlier reference to Bartleby the Scrivener, and the Chair recessed the Committee on Jurisprudence subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• People aren't off on vacation, so that's why the June deadline was selected.
• So I applaud the town clerk and the moderator there and the select board and all of the town residents
• and the moderator there and the select and the moderator there and the select board<01:34:45.120
• <03:21:54.399> of<03:21:54.640> advertising clarifying the placement of advertising
• clarifying the placement of advertising signs<03:21:55.680> on<03:21:55.920> stateowned

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, at the time, we understood the 12% contribution to be part of an evaluation, not a decision selected
• And I remember showing them a black spruce stand that was on the list that the computer model had selected
• :17:10.040> computer<01:17:10.480> model<01:17:10.760> had<01:17:10.960> selected
• <01:17:11.600> and that the computer model had selected and that the computer model had selected
• above placement of incineration above landfilling,<01:46:39.440> and<01:46:39.640> yet

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, the bill sets up pathways for these people to get into placements.
• , um, and any additional civil commitments and enhanced protective placements.
• , um, and any additional civil commitments and enhanced protective placements.
• <01:12:17.800> So, enhanced protective placements. So, enhanced protective placements.
• People we're going to end up needing these, um, placements for.

Keywords: 981, all