Transcript Highlights:

• What this legislation would do would be allow for DFA to opt out of that process, which would make it
• <00:02:18.800> that Um it is a piece of legislation that Um it is a piece of legislation that
• > would<00:07:23.520> allow Legislation was done that would allow Legislation was done
• > um,<00:09:54.720> with several fragmented processes um, with several fragmented processes
• not ask for this piece of legislation. not ask for this piece of legislation.

Keywords: Universities and Colleges - Room 216, 3 March, 2026; 11:00 AM, 925, all

Summary: The committee first considered a strike-all related to the Mississippi Upskill Grant Program and a K-12 bridge bill tied to CTE and special purpose schools. Members discussed the alignment of workforce and career-technical education from pre-K through higher education. Senator Hopson moved to add a reverse repealer, which was adopted, and the strike-all was then passed as amended and forwarded to appropriations. The committee then took up Senate Bill 1488, which would authorize the University of Southern Mississippi to sell or enter into a long-term lease for university property in Hattiesburg. Senator Johnson explained that the roughly 600-acre tract, gifted in the 1920s and formerly used as a golf course, has a master plan for redevelopment; the bill would streamline the sale process while preserving requirements such as two appraisals and IHL approval. After questions about the acreage and safeguards, the bill was passed as amended and sent to appropriations. Members also approved a strike-all addressing financial literacy requirements for colleges and universities, including added content on mortgages and real estate, and then passed House Bill 1495, a companion to Senate Bill 2238, allowing Mississippi State University and the Oktibbeha County school district to co-mingle funds by mutual agreement for their partnership school/high school project. Finally, House Bill 1582 on community college energy performance contracts was discussed at length; the chair said it needed further vetting by the public property committee, so the committee added a reverse repealer and passed the bill as amended. The meeting ended with a rise and report.

Transcript Highlights:

• the data through a complex monthly process.
• the data through a complex monthly process.
• So that was part of that process.
• But is it used ahead of the budgeting process to inform the budgeting process, or is it only after the
• So at the end of the legislative session, we have that model that is provided to us from legislative

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee subcommittee heard a State Auditor’s Office performance audit on the accuracy and reliability of OSPI’s school apportionment system. Auditors said the system, which calculates and distributes K-12 funding using multiple feeder systems and a core apportionment engine, is outdated, unstable, inefficient, and at high risk of failure. They reported weak controls over data input, documentation, oversight, and staffing, and said OSPI relies heavily on manual workarounds, a few knowledgeable staff, and vendor support. In limited testing of three districts, the auditors found the system calculated funding correctly for the 2023-24 school year, but they identified nine small input discrepancies tied to differences between budget materials and state law, which they said could compound into larger dollar amounts. The auditors recommended replacing or modernizing the system and noted that delays in doing so prolong risk. OSPI largely agreed that the current platform needs replacement and said it has been working toward a new system for years. Agency officials clarified that the Legislature requested a feasibility study in 2022, that the study found the system at risk of catastrophic failure, and that funding for a replacement is now in the state IT pool subject to OCIO/OFM gate reviews. OSPI disputed the audit’s characterization of the rounding and budget-law discrepancies, saying the issue was an agency rule and implementation choice, not an error that caused under- or over-allocation. Officials also said the current system is too old to easily absorb future formula changes, but that the planned replacement should be flexible enough to handle a new funding model if the Legislature adopts one. Committee members asked about the amount and timing of the $16 million project funding, whether smaller districts face greater risk, how many times data is entered, and whether the funding formula should be simplified. Auditors and OSPI both emphasized that formula simplification is a policy question for the Legislature, not the audit. Public testimony came from one online witness, who urged full implementation of the audit recommendations and modernization of the system. The subcommittee took no formal vote and adjourned after the presentations and testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, um during that permitting process.
• That was the comment permitting process.
• need for legislation. need for legislation.
• And since it will be an ongoing process And since it will be an ongoing process with<00:18:29.440
• I I've never heard of anything process.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened its September meeting, seated alternates to establish a quorum, approved the prior minutes and consent agenda, and then moved to the regular calendar. The main substantive item was the kinship care home licensing standards rule (2025-130), which had a conditional approval request with three comments. Committee discussion focused on whether the rule and statute aligned on temporary permits, renewal, and whether a statutory amendment might be needed. Department of Health and Human Services and DCF staff explained that kinship care licenses are issued for two years and may be renewed, while the temporary six-month permit is meant to bridge applicants until licensure. They also said the rule was amended to reflect statutory language, and members suggested adding clearer language to avoid confusion. The committee then approved the conditional request, including oral amendments for clarity, and noted that any needed statutory cleanup would be added to a running list of possible changes for future filing. The committee next took up an emergency rule from the Lottery Commission concerning games of chance and video lottery terminals. Staff said the emergency rule was needed to avoid substantial fiscal harm to the state and loss of expected revenue, and that it largely builds on existing charitable gaming infrastructure. Members questioned the emergency basis and asked about precedent for using fiscal harm as justification, but staff said they did not have precedent information immediately available. The commission representative said regular rulemaking was already underway and would be brought to the commission at its October meeting. The committee did not take adverse action on the emergency rule during the discussion. Finally, the committee reviewed Department of Safety Commissioner Emergency Rule 14357 on school bus transportation qualifications. The rule creates an exception for applicants whose driver’s license validity had a gap of no more than 30 days due to suspension or non-renewal, which staff said would help address a school bus driver shortage and reduce transportation problems for students. Members raised the possibility of a legislative fix to distinguish administrative lapses from safety-related suspensions, and staff said that could be considered. The committee noted the emergency rule is only effective for 180 days and will return through regular rulemaking for fuller review. The meeting ended with scheduling for the next regular meeting on October 17 and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our preference would have been to resolve these through the legislative process.
• process?
• This legislative cycle we traveled through the Senate.
• cycles that we have filed this legislation.
• The many legislative cycles that we have filed this legislation, and unfortunately didn't go anywhere

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 2522 / H. 5909, which would amend state labor law to treat the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) as a public employer and allow its employees to seek collective bargaining rights. The chair explained the Article 48 initiative process, noted that no opponents or members of the public had signed up to testify, and said written testimony would be accepted through March 20. The hearing focused on whether CPCS staff should be brought within the public-sector bargaining framework and how that would interact with the agency’s statutory duties. Expert testimony began with an NCSL analyst, who gave a national overview of public employee bargaining rights and examples of public defender unions in other states and localities, including Colorado, New York City, Indianapolis, Cook County, Maryland, and Illinois. Department of Labor Relations officials then reviewed prior failed organizing efforts at CPCS and its predecessor, explaining that earlier petitions were dismissed because the agency was not considered a public employer under existing law. They said passage of the initiative would not automatically unionize employees, but would allow a union to petition for an election or written majority authorization, with normal unit-appropriateness and supervisory/confidential employee issues still to be resolved. CPCS Chief Counsel Anthony Benedetti testified that the agency supports providing information to the legislature but is not taking a position for or against unionization. He described CPCS’s statutory responsibilities, size, and current efforts to expand staffing after recent indigent-defense crises, and said any new bargaining framework would need to operate alongside the agency’s obligations to provide counsel. Proponents from SEIU Local 888 and allied labor groups argued that CPCS employees have long been denied the same collective bargaining rights as other public workers, and that a union would provide just-cause protections, a voice on staffing and working conditions, and better support for recruitment and retention. CPCS attorneys and staff testified in favor of the measure, citing heavy caseloads, rapid expansion, inadequate supervision and office support, and the need for representation in disciplinary and workplace disputes. Committee members asked about bargaining-unit composition, the role of the DLR, the effect of unionization on attorneys’ ethical duties, and the use and cost of paid signature gathering. The hearing ended with no votes taken and no opposition testimony presented.

Transcript Highlights:

• First of all, we seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that
• When we got into that process, issues When we got into that process, issues were raised on that approach
• I don't like processes that are this rushed.
• I'm upset at the focus on process, where I have never seen in my life legislators work so hard and be
• I hear that blaming the authors of this bill for a process that they did not create and a process that

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee held an informational hearing on AB 715, followed by discussion of SB 48. AB 715 was presented by Assembly Members Zbur and Addis as a response to rising anti-Semitism in California schools. They described incidents involving harassment, swastikas, biased classroom materials, and students feeling unsafe, and said the bill would create an Office of Civil Rights with coordinators to address anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination, provide prevention resources, and support school districts. Witnesses in support, including a rabbi and a student who described personal experiences with anti-Semitic harassment, urged immediate action to protect Jewish students. Opposition testimony came from the California Teachers Association, county superintendents, school board groups, labor organizations, civil liberties advocates, ethnic studies educators, and many community members. Their main concerns were that the bill was rushed, had not been fully vetted in the Assembly Education Committee, and could chill classroom speech or create constitutional problems, especially around language requiring instruction and materials to be “factually accurate” and not based on advocacy, bias, or partisanship. Several opponents argued that anti-Semitism should be addressed through education, training, and restorative practices rather than new statutory restrictions. Some witnesses also raised concerns about the bill’s impact on ethnic studies and free speech. Committee members then debated the bill’s process and substance at length. The authors said the bill had been narrowed through negotiations with education stakeholders and the Senate, that some disputed provisions would be revisited in cleanup language, and that the urgency of anti-Semitic incidents required action now. Several members expressed support for the bill’s goal but criticized the late release of the final language and the lack of consultation with the Assembly committee. Others emphasized the need to protect Jewish students immediately and argued the bill was a necessary response to a real crisis. The transcript does not show a final vote on AB 715 in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• have been due process.
• have been due process.
• <00:46:37.079> as process was not a two- week process as process was not a two- week process
• any legislation, because we've got a unique position in this process.
• > are a a process a step-by-step process are a a process a step-by-step process are you<01:40:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective
• We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective
• To the planning process.
• But in the nutshell, we still go through that process.
• You just heard in terms of navigating new legislation and any ambiguities in that legislation and dealing

Summary: The committee first heard AB 253, by Assembly Member Ward and presented by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva, which would allow licensed third-party professionals to review certain post-entitlement permits if a local building department would take more than 30 days. Supporters, including California YIMBY, the California Chamber of Commerce, the Housing Action Coalition, the Bay Area Council, SPUR, and Abundant Housing LA, said the bill would reduce permitting delays and help housing production. League of Cities and the California State Association of Counties expressed concerns but were not formally opposed. Members voiced strong support, and the bill passed the committee 10-0 to Appropriations. The committee then held an informational hearing on California’s general plan. The first panel, led by UC Davis professor Catherine Brinkley, gave an overview of the general plan structure, required elements, update cycles, and the new PlanSearch database that makes adopted plans searchable statewide. She emphasized that general plans are long-term, locally tailored documents that integrate housing, transportation, safety, environmental justice, and other policy areas, and noted that many plans and elements are outdated. Members asked about update timelines, public participation, and whether AI tools could help with drafting and analysis. A second panel of local government representatives described the practical challenges of preparing and updating general plans, especially in rural and small jurisdictions. Speakers from Calaveras County, Sacramento, San Joaquin County, and Fountain Valley cited staffing shortages, consultant availability, funding constraints, CEQA and outreach costs, changing state mandates, and the difficulty of keeping plans aligned with local conditions and board turnover. They asked for more funding, more time, clearer prioritization, and more flexibility. A third panel from the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation explained its role in issuing general plan guidelines, technical advisories, and annual planning surveys, and said it is updating its guidance through 2027 to reflect recent housing, climate, safety, environmental justice, and open space laws. No public comment was offered, and the informational hearing was adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• process locally.
• It was actually in all of our legislative analysis and legislative priorities; this issue started out
• process.
• process.
• Representative town meeting would give voters less access to the local legislative process, while what

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government held a hybrid hearing on bills related to land use, zoning, permitting, municipal governance, and homelessness. Early testimony focused on a home rule petition for Ipswich to remove a residency requirement for a town manager, with supporters saying it would broaden the applicant pool and help fill a vacant permanent manager position. Another panel backed legislation to change the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission’s governance so ratepayers in surrounding communities would have representation, arguing the current board structure leaves many users without a voice in rate-setting and capital decisions. Several housing and zoning bills drew testimony. Senator Keenan and the Home Builders and Remodelers Association supported a bill to toll the one-year period for acting on a variance while an appeal is pending, saying appeals should not consume the time needed to implement approved projects. Representative Murray and the Real Estate Bar Association also testified on broader zoning reforms, including changes to undersized lots, merger rules, hearing deadlines, appeals, and variance standards; they argued the proposals would reduce delay and uncertainty and help housing production. Committee members questioned whether shifting zoning appeals from de novo to closed-record review would limit new evidence, and the witnesses said the change would speed cases while preserving limited opportunities to supplement the record. The committee also heard testimony on bills to end the criminalization of homelessness. Representatives, advocates, and shelter organizations said local camping bans and fines are counterproductive, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Grants Pass decision, and urged a statewide response centered on housing and public health rather than punishment. Other municipal bills included remote participation in open town meetings for Wayland and a statewide local option, Fairhaven and Mattapoisett charter changes, and Cambridge’s request to use automated parking enforcement and mail parking tickets. The hearing also included testimony supporting fairground zoning flexibility, a Shrewsbury solar siting bill, and an Inspector General bill clarifying county land disposition procedures by requiring written notice to DCAM and a defined response period. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• With more frequent turnover, legislators simply have less time to get up to speed, both on processes
• process.
• needs, any bill draft requests, or any questions about generally navigating the legislative process.
• So they kind of... ...draft requests or any questions about generally navigating the legislative process
• But it's also an overview of the legislative process, information on bill drafting and fiscal notes,

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Legislative Procedure and Arrangements Committee met with a quorum, approved the previous meeting minutes, and heard an update from Garty Consulting on the interim study of legislative term limits. The consultants outlined their research plan and preliminary themes, including loss of institutional knowledge, shifts in power toward executive agencies and lobbyists, reduced long-term policy capacity, faster leadership turnover, and recruitment/support challenges. They also described possible recommendation categories ranging from constitutional and statutory changes to procedural and cultural adjustments. Committee members asked about how other states repealed term limits, how the public survey would address perceptions of term limits, and how stakeholder focus groups would be selected. The committee also heard a presentation from NCSL on term limits in other states, including examples from Nevada, Montana, and Colorado, with discussion of training programs, staffing changes, annual-session debates, bill limits, and impacts on decorum and leadership continuity. Several members requested follow-up data on part-time versus full-time legislatures, taxpayer costs, and nonpartisan staff devoted to oversight. The committee then considered revisions to the legislature’s workplace harassment policy and related forms. Legislative Council explained changes that clarified the definition of harassment, added captions for readability, extended several deadlines, allowed informal resolution before a review panel is appointed, clarified the role of Legislative Council in intake and documentation, and updated confidentiality/open-records language. Members, especially Senator Hogan, said the revisions better formalize the role of counsel and provide a less intimidating path for resolving complaints. The committee adopted the revised policy and forms by roll call vote. Finally, the committee approved a motion to enter executive session at 1:00 p.m. to review the results of a capital threat assessment and discuss legislator security, citing the applicable open-meetings exemptions. Members were instructed to limit discussion to the stated purpose and not take final action until returning to open session.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will seek to protect the rights of all who participate in this legislative process so that we can
• Very fast-moving process.
• And the biggest part of this process, unlike Texas, where they're going to legislate and do this and
• and have locked up legislators.
• legislative session.

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on August 19, 2025, to consider ACA 8, SB 280, and an informational hearing on AB 604. The meeting began with several failed motions to adjourn, to read public comments into the record, and to recess so members could review the roughly 16,000 public comments submitted through the committee portal. The chair emphasized the hearing’s expedited format, transparency measures, and rules limiting witness testimony, and noted a letter from Speaker Rivas authorizing Assemblymember Berman to present ACA 8. ACA 8, described by supporters as the “Election Rigging Response Act,” would place before voters a temporary congressional redistricting plan tied to AB 604 and triggered only if another state, especially Texas, adopts a partisan mid-decade redistricting. Supporters, including Assemblymember Berman, labor groups, CTA, Planned Parenthood affiliates, SEIU, and other allied organizations, argued the measure was a response to partisan gerrymandering elsewhere and a defense of democracy, with voters having the final say in a November 4, 2025 special election. Opponents, including current and former redistricting commissioners, good-government groups, business and taxpayer organizations, and many members of the public, argued the proposal undermines California’s independent redistricting model, was rushed without adequate public review, could cost roughly $200 million or more, and would invite litigation and partisan manipulation. The committee also debated a proposed amendment that would bar legislators who voted for ACA 8 from later running for Congress in districts adopted under the measure. After extended procedural disputes, the committee voted to lay the amendment on the table. The hearing then continued with extensive public testimony, overwhelmingly divided between strong support and strong opposition, but the transcript provided does not show a final committee vote on ACA 8 or SB 280 before the excerpt ends.

Transcript Highlights:

• But all of that is legislatively driven.
• The lottery filed the rules with the Legislative Council.
• So we're in the process of getting that in place.
• The PERS board does follow a standard process in our rulemaking process, which includes staff preparation
• We do send notice to legislators who sponsored the legislation pertaining to those proposed rules that

Summary: The committee approved the March 12, 2026 minutes and granted the Board of Medicine an extension of time to implement rule changes tied to House Bill 1620/1622, which concern North Dakota’s entry into the physician assistant licensure compact. The Board said it is waiting on compact rules, especially fee structures, before finalizing its own rules. The committee then took up extensive Office of Management and Budget personnel rule revisions, covering salary administration, recruitment, leave policies, funeral leave, service awards, appeals, and shared leave. OMB said the changes modernize HR practices and implement recent legislation, including new hire leave and enhanced annual leave for hard-to-fill positions; the committee raised concerns about the subjectivity and fairness of the hard-to-fill leave provisions, but no action was taken against the rules. The North Dakota Lottery presented emergency and regular rule changes, including updates tied to the Millionaire for Life game and miscellaneous clarifications. The Board of Examiners for Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology described rule updates that add speech-language pathology assistants to the rules, ease continuing education requirements for out-of-state applicants, expand temporary licensure, and clarify supervision standards. The State Electrical Board reviewed numerous code updates, including changes to electrical and fire alarm standards, receptacle labeling, countertop receptacles, and a major new conveyance/elevator inspection program added by the Legislature; the board said it is preparing to begin inspections by August 1. The Industrial Commission’s Geological Survey Division presented new rules implementing House Bill 1459 on critical minerals in coal-bearing formations, including permit, reporting, confidentiality, and royalty-related provisions. The committee asked about confidentiality of exploration data and drilling depth. The Public Employees Retirement System outlined rule changes implementing several bills affecting defined benefit, public safety, defined contribution, insurance, deferred compensation, and retiree health credit programs, and noted possible future proposals to add state EMS or create a LOSAP-style plan. The Department of Health and Human Services presented substance use disorder voucher rules implementing House Bill 1012, including allowing individuals to apply directly and setting reimbursement procedures; the rules were expected to have a $250,000 general fund impact already included in the budget. The longest discussion involved the Gaming Commission rules. Members questioned whether the commission had authority to raise poker tournament buy-ins from $300 to $1,500, viewing it as an expansion of gaming rather than a mere clarification. After debate, the committee voted to void that specific rule section for lack of statutory authority. The rest of the gaming rules covered higher raffle limits from House Bill 1192, the change from “bar” to “alcoholic beverage establishment,” veterans’ organization proceeds, credit ticket voucher kiosks, online raffles, and advertising restrictions; the presenter said several public comments led to revisions or withdrawals of proposed language. The meeting ended with discussion of upcoming Ethics Commission travel-reporting rules and scheduling the next committee meeting in September.

Transcript Highlights:

• and good legislation. and good legislation.
• That's our job as a legislative branch: to hear, to look at that process language, to amend, to offer
• That's our job as a legislative branch: to hear, to look at that process language, to amend, to offer
• That's our job as a legislative branch: to hear, to look at that process language, to amend, to offer
• That's our job as a legislative branch: to hear, to look at that process language, to amend, to offer

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The House took Senate File 3210 off the table and then adopted an amendment from Representative Nadeau that added the word “reasonable” and a statutory reference clarifying who qualifies as a person with a disability. The bill, as amended, was then given third reading. The measure is described as relating to human rights and disability accommodations as protection from discrimination. Representative Hicks, the bill’s author, said the proposal is intended to send a clear message that discrimination against people with disabilities is unlawful and that entities must engage in a good-faith process to identify reasonable accommodations. Supporters, including Representatives Finke, Feist, and Luetkemeyer, argued the bill reinforces existing law, reflects the interactive process already used in practice, and helps protect access in employment, public accommodations, schools, and other settings. Hicks also responded to questions from Representative Joy by describing the process as a simple conversation to meet a person’s needs. Representative Niska opposed the bill, arguing that it is unclear whether it changes the meaning of other provisions in the Minnesota Human Rights Act beyond employment and that it could create ambiguity and more litigation for businesses, schools, and public entities. He said the legislature should be explicit if it intends to change those provisions and warned the bill could invite lawsuits rather than provide clarity. Representative Loegering-Nicolai responded that the bill would change the practice of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and that referencing the interactive process in public policy would provide a lens for assessing whether accommodations were handled in good faith. No final vote on passage was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• to appropriate appropriate legislative to appropriate appropriate legislative bodies.<00:04:27.520
• exemptions within 30 days and to process exemptions within 30 days and to process the<00:04:33.520
• final approval by a county legislative final approval by a county legislative body<00:04:37.600>
• > an A county agency processing an A county agency processing an application<00:15:06.639>
• application is being processed. application is being processed.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Housing heard and then took action on a series of housing-related bills concerning HHFDC, HPHA, inclusionary zoning, nonprofit housing trusts, housing project exemptions, the rental housing revolving fund, and a new for-sale housing program. Testimony was generally supportive from HHFDC and HPHA, with additional support from groups such as Hawaii YIMBY, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Hawaii Appleseed, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Holo Collaborative, the Kobayashi Group, and others. On SB 2424, the Kobayashi Group argued the bill would help open housing to a broader pool of local households, including buyers slightly above income limits who still cannot afford market-rate housing. On SB 2342, the chair asked HHFDC for final figures on rental housing revolving fund appropriations since 2016 and was told the amount was about $1.1 billion, including conveyance tax revenue. In decision-making, the committee recommended passage of SB 2189 with amendments, noting concerns about transparency and accountability in HHFDC’s loan-award process; SB 2190 with amendments; SB 2234 with amendments; SB 2177 with amendments; SB 2194 unamended; SB 2342 with amendments; SB 2060 with amendments; and SB 2070 with amendments. The committee deferred SB 2195 and SB 2196 after testimony comments, and deferred SB 2063 because the chair said SB 2060 would be used instead as the vehicle for mixed-income subaccount changes. SB 2424 was discussed in hearing but then deferred in decision-making pending legal advice on issues including owner-occupancy, county income restrictions, buyback rules, and county council approval. The committee also heard testimony on SB 2062 and its proposed SD1, but deferred that measure because the relevant changes had already been incorporated into SB 2060 SD1.

Transcript Highlights:

• There is a process we have to follow.
• But when you onboard new attorneys, there's an onboarding process, there's a training process, there's
• Well, legislative counsel can explain the process. Yes, thank you. I would appreciate that.
• is a multi, multi, multi-stage process.
• A multi-multi-stage process.

Keywords: 970, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective
• That's the lawmaking process. It's a process, but we're not deliberating today.
• or future legislation fair. and on the child To, you know, make this legislation or future legislation
• In order to streamline the process to fix signature issues and get ballots processed faster, AB 2604.
• .. ...to streamline the process to fix signature issues and get ballots processed faster, AB 2604 would

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met as a subcommittee until quorum was established, then heard a series of election- and public-trust-related bills. Early items included AB 2592, which would move lobbyist training from legislative ethics committees to the FPPC starting in 2029 and make it available online on demand; it drew support from the FPPC and an oppose-unless-amended request to make the training public and ensure lobbyists pay fees. AB 2573 would refine California’s confidential voter registration protections for candidates and elected officials, with support from the Secretary of State and county election officials after amendments narrowed some family-member coverage. AB 2753 would bar registered sex offenders from running for or holding local or state office; it prompted extended debate about public trust, second chances, and where to draw the line, but was ultimately advanced on a 5-0 vote with one member not voting. AB 2691 similarly would expand disqualifying felony convictions to include sexual assault and human trafficking, and it also passed 5-0 after testimony from victim advocates and discussion about survivors, restorative justice, and the power dynamics involved in public office. The committee also advanced AB 2413, which would prohibit public funds from being used for large-format ads featuring elected officials, and AB 2281, which would direct the Office of Election Cybersecurity to assess replacement resources after federal cybersecurity support cuts and allow consultation with academic researchers. AB 1664 would require local election officials to notify the Secretary of State and Attorney General within one business day of warrants, subpoenas, or investigations involving election records or voting systems; supporters said it would help the state respond quickly to improper seizure of election materials, and it passed 5-0. AB 2484, concerning San Diego MTS, would let voters authorize a local sales tax initiative for transit funding and exempt it from an existing cap; it drew support from transit leaders and labor, opposition from the Realtors, and a lengthy exchange over Prop. 13, Prop. 218, and whether the measure created a special deal, before passing 6-1. The committee then heard AB 2230, which would create buffer zones around voting centers and child care facilities to keep immigration enforcement away from those locations. The author said the bill was meant to reduce fear and intimidation for voters and families, while the opposition argued it was unenforceable, lacked evidence of a problem, and would interfere with federal officers doing their jobs. Members supporting the bill cited reported ICE profiling and intimidation in California communities, while others raised jurisdictional and practical concerns. The transcript ends during this debate, with no final vote shown for AB 2230.

Transcript Highlights:

• Since as part of this process we know that we're going to have to go through the BCP process or we're
• So there's no reason why that can't come forward as part of the budget process or the policy process
• , why... ...still don't really understand why this process, why sort of the traditional process of a
• of the regulatory process.
• One is the department's still in the process that's before the regulatory process.

Summary: The committee hearing focused heavily on CARB’s broad trailer bill request for regulatory fee authority. Finance and CARB argued the proposal would let CARB develop fees to recover reasonable costs for implementing and enforcing regulations, while the LAO recommended rejection because the authority was too broad, could apply to an entire division of code, and would delegate core legislative taxing/fee-setting power without enough guardrails. Members from both parties raised concerns about the breadth of the authority, accountability, affordability impacts, and whether the Legislature would be put in an up-or-down position after CARB had already developed regulations. CARB responded that fees would still go through a budget change proposal and legislative approval before collection, and cited existing examples such as transport refrigeration units and commercial harborcraft fees. The committee then reviewed CARB’s request for permanent resources to implement SB 905 on carbon capture, utilization, storage, and carbon dioxide removal. CARB said the Legislature had previously authorized limited-term positions and funding, but it had struggled to recruit and retain staff with specialized regulatory and technical expertise, and that the work had included pre-rulemaking contracts, technology review, and permit-related preparation. Members questioned the pace of work, the use of limited-term positions, and whether additional permitting authority would be needed. CARB said it hoped to begin rulemaking later in the year if permanent resources were approved. Members also discussed the cap-and-trade spending plan, noting lower-than-expected auction revenues but higher interest earnings, and the need to monitor the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and possible May Revision changes. The committee then heard overviews of the zero-emission vehicle package, the Community Air Protection Program, demand-side grid support, and e-bike incentives. CARB described ongoing investments in community-based transportation equity, drayage trucks, harbor craft, and other clean technology demonstrations, while members pressed on affordability, program duplication, and whether enough funding was being directed to incentive programs. No formal votes were taken during the portion provided, and the chair repeatedly indicated that the hearing was intended to surface concerns for later budget negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• This, again, was legislatively ordered. We began this process.
• legislative session was preventing us from processing some of our revenue that was generated properly
• or their bank processing?
• We have, she talked about process.
• Have an electronic process, and the rest are coming on with an electronic process.

Summary: The committee met to receive a series of audit presentations, beginning with the statewide Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for fiscal year 2025. The State Auditor’s Office and OMB reported a clean, unmodified opinion for the state, with strong financial results including a $40.6 billion net position, $30.99 billion in assets, $1.81 billion in liabilities, and continued Legacy Fund growth. OMB also explained the new GASB 101 compensated-absences reporting change and discussed pension-liability fluctuations tied to discount-rate assumptions and investment performance. Members asked about how the state compares to others and about the effect of short-term commodity price swings, and OMB said the report reflects actual fiscal-year results rather than forecasts. The committee then heard the University System audit, which also received a clean opinion but included four findings: misreporting of Strategic Investment and Improvements Fund revenue, insufficient monitoring of service organizations at CTS, NDSU, and UND, improper bank reconciliations at Dakota College of Bottineau, Dickinson State, and Williston State, and investment/cash reconciliation problems at Bismarck State College related to bond proceeds. University officials agreed with the findings and said corrective actions were underway, including internal review of bank reconciliations. Members raised questions about NDSU’s use of certificates of deposit, and university staff explained that CDs are used to earn interest on funds being accumulated for future projects. Several other audits were presented, most with clean opinions and no findings, including the State Auditor’s Office, Workforce Safety and Insurance, Housing Finance Agency, Housing Incentive Fund, Job Service North Dakota, the Retirement and Investment Office, PERS, the Center for Distance Education, the Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigents, the Ethics Commission, and the Office of Administrative Hearings. Notable exceptions included a State Fair Association audit with an adverse opinion on the foundation component unit because its financial statements were not available for audit, and a Securities Department performance audit finding that performance-based pay increases and bonuses were issued without required evaluations. The committee also discussed the State Auditor’s future needs, including more staff capacity, data analytics, cybersecurity reviews, possible subpoena authority, independent legal counsel, and whether some audits—such as the Ethics Commission and State Fair—should be handled by independent third parties or under different statutory arrangements.

Transcript Highlights:

• the data through a complex monthly process.
• So that was part of that process.
• But is it used ahead of the budgeting process to inform the budgeting process, or is it only after the
• And that’s not a legislative red flag.
• So at the end of the legislative session, we have that model that is provided to us from legislative

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The committee heard a State Auditor’s Office performance audit on OSPI’s school apportionment system, which distributes K-12 funding to districts. Auditors said the system and its underlying 2008-era infrastructure are outdated, unstable, inefficient, and at high risk of errors or failure. They also found weak controls over data input, documentation, oversight, and monitoring, with heavy reliance on a small number of staff and vendor knowledge. In limited testing of three districts, the system calculated 2023–24 funding correctly, but auditors identified small discrepancies between state budget inputs and underlying statutory language and said broader system risks remain unresolved. JLARC members asked about the scope of the district testing, whether smaller districts face greater risk, the meaning of the funding discrepancies, and whether the system could support a future change to a simpler per-student funding formula. Auditors said the discrepancies were small but could compound into millions statewide, and that the audit did not evaluate broader policy questions or alternative system owners. They recommended OSPI modernize or replace the system and address current control weaknesses while the new platform is developed. OSPI officials largely agreed that the current platform needs replacement and said a feasibility study completed in 2024 found the system at catastrophic risk of failure. They clarified that the Legislature had approved up to $16 million in the state IT pool for the project, but that funding is released through gated oversight and not all of it had yet been appropriated for the current biennium. OSPI disputed the auditor’s characterization of some rounding and budget-law issues, saying the calculations were consistent with agency rules and legislative inputs, and explained that some manual workarounds are used to handle newer statutory requirements. One member of the public testified in support of modernizing the system and strengthening controls. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's some good pieces of legislation on the table.
• We are working on processes for process improvements so we could potential for automation of some of
• He's using a chainsaw instead of a thoughtful process.
• We are in the process.
• A standard and a process for appeal.

Bills: SB124, SB201, SB275, SB410, SB478, SB607, SB610, SB611, SB654, SB702, SB787, SB831, SB892

Keywords: Department of Veterans Affairs, disciplinary procedures, accountability, personnel actions, whistleblower protection, cancer, military, aircrew, veterans, health study, toxins, morbidity, mortality, service members, mental health, community care, accessibility, treatment programs, substance abuse, appointments

Summary: During the meeting, various members engaged in extensive discussions surrounding 15 proposed bills related to veterans' affairs. Notably, concerns regarding recent VA workforce changes sparked debates, particularly about potential cuts and their implications for veterans' care and benefits. Chairman Moran emphasized the need for thoughtful reforms and coordination with stakeholders, urging responsible measures to prevent negatively impacting service delivery. The meeting highlighted a significant bipartisan effort to enhance veterans' access to essential health services, particularly in light of recent challenges faced by the VA workforce. Senator Blumenthal's assertions about the urgent plight of veterans due to cuts in personnel drew strong reactions, showcasing the deep concern among committee members regarding the current state of veteran services.

Transcript Highlights:

• By streamlining the process, it not only One.
• She said they appreciated all of the time and energy that went into the process for creating the legislation
• She said they appreciated all the time and energy that went into the process for creating this legislation
• So you will go through a screening process.
• The screening process will be handled by the private sector.

Bills: SB9

Keywords: wetlands protection, nontidal wetlands, Delaware, environmental sustainability, climate change, carbon sink, permitting process

Summary: The House Natural Resources and Energy Committee met and first considered SB 321 with Senate Amendment 1, the community solar utility billing bill. The sponsor explained that it would consolidate the two-bill system for community solar subscribers into one utility bill, with the utility forwarding the subscriber fee to the solar facility through an escrow mechanism so costs are not shifted to other ratepayers. Testimony from the solar industry, the Public Advocate, and environmental advocates supported the measure, emphasizing easier enrollment, fewer barriers for low-income customers, and guaranteed savings. The committee initially lacked enough members present to release the bill, but after a roll call vote it was released from committee. The committee then heard SB 9 with Senate Amendment 1, a wetlands protection bill creating a state non-tidal freshwater wetlands permitting program. The sponsor and DNREC described a framework of exemptions, general permits, and individual permits based on wetland type and value, with an advisory committee to develop regulations. Witnesses explained that “exceptional value” wetlands would include unique wetland communities and high-functioning wetlands, and that the bill was intended to preserve important habitat while allowing farming, drainage, and other exempt activities to continue. Some members raised concerns about flooding, land classification, and the balance of the advisory committee, while supporters said the bill was the product of broad stakeholder consensus and would protect wetlands without unduly harming agriculture or development. Public comment on SB 9 was strongly supportive from environmental groups, the Delaware Native Species Commission, the Home Builders Association, the Farm Bureau, The Nature Conservancy, and affordable housing advocates, who said the bill balanced conservation with practical land use concerns. After remote testimony, the committee took a roll call vote and SB 9 was released from committee. The meeting concluded with remarks thanking the chair for her service and instructions for members to sign the backers before adjournment.