Transcript Highlights:

• Who will write? the uh majority report. Who will write?
• you write the majority? you write the majority?
• will write the minority? will write the minority?
• Okay." who will write the minority? who will write the minority?
• will you write the report? will you write the report?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• People being able to write off the costs of they're incurring, right?
• People being able to write off the costs of they're incurring, right?
• People being able to write off Right?
• They're writing off costs that incurred.
• write that off. off. off.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard presentation on HF 495, a bill intended to help families with rising child care costs by allowing a subtraction from taxable income for licensed child care expenses. The author said the measure would provide immediate relief to families while broader child care supply and affordability problems are addressed, citing a revenue analysis estimating about 81,700 returns affected and an average tax decrease of $639. The bill was described as applying only to licensed child care centers, family child care, or group family child care under chapter 142B. A virtual testifier, Annel Velasco of St. Paul, opposed the bill. She said child care is indeed expensive but argued the proposal is only a small patch that does not address structural problems such as provider closures, low teacher pay, and lack of available slots. She also said the subtraction would disproportionately benefit higher-income families and would not help providers or teachers. Members debated whether the bill should be more targeted. Representative Smith and Representative Lee argued the proposal is uncapped, expensive, and structured as a subtraction rather than a refundable credit, meaning it would mainly help higher-income households and could divert resources from other credits such as the working family tax credit or child tax credit. Representative Swedzinski supported the bill as allowing families to keep their own money and said child care costs are high across income levels. Chair Gomez and others emphasized that the child care system has broader structural failures, including low pay and lack of slots, and said this bill would address only one part of the problem. No vote or final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• will write the committee report. will write the committee report.
• would like to write the report? would like to write the report?
• who will be writing the report? who will be writing the report?
• And who would like to write the report? And who would like to write the report?
• I will write the majority report. Who would like to write the minority report?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Municipal and County Government Committee met in executive session on February 17, 2026, to act on a series of bills. Early in the meeting, members agreed that they could consult the online submission summaries rather than have changing submission counts read aloud. The committee then took up House Bill 1386, which would have allowed citizens in a municipality to vote to require a financial audit of a local school district. Members opposing the bill argued that school districts already have audit authority and reporting requirements under existing law, and that the proposal was unnecessary and potentially burdensome. The committee voted 17-0 to recommend the bill inexpedient to legislate, placing it on the consent calendar. The committee next considered House Bill 1181FN on public hearing notice requirements for zoning board of adjustment appeals. Members who opposed the bill said newspaper publication provides independent third-party verification and archival value, and that removing that requirement would weaken public notice. The committee voted 17-0 ITL and sent the bill to the consent calendar. It also voted 17-0 ITL on House Bill 1327, concerning the definition of commercially zoned land, largely because the sponsor was absent and members said they could not do due diligence without hearing from the sponsor. The committee then acted on House Bill 1473FN, concerning the use of agricultural fairground property, and House Bill 1147, concerning the use of capital reserve funds. In both cases, members cited the sponsor’s absence and the need for more information as reasons to recommend inexpedient to legislate; both votes were 17-0 and both bills were placed on the consent calendar. House Bill 1220, which would have allowed municipal governing bodies to review and approve school budgets, was also recommended ITL by a 17-0 vote after members raised concerns about local control, legal conflicts between separate entities, and technical drafting problems. The committee recommended ought to pass on House Bill 118, which raises the amount of money municipal treasurers may hold before depositing it in the bank, with supporters saying the higher threshold would reduce unnecessary trips to the bank and improve efficiency. It also recommended ought to pass on House Bill 1151, a housekeeping bill correcting statutory references related to conservation commission appropriations, and it approved House Bill 1309 as amended after adopting Amendment 2026-0411H to clarify town meeting warrant language. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 1385, prohibiting negative property tax rates in certain municipalities, and recommended ITL by a 17-0 vote after testimony indicated the practice at issue had already ended and that a blanket prohibition could create problems for municipalities with excess revenues. The committee also began work on House Bill 1369, relating to posting warrants for special town meetings, and discussed an amendment to preserve newspaper notice while also allowing website posting where available.

Transcript Highlights:

• The way the statute's written, if the constituent requests it, the member can write it.
• So the letters that we get, or the questions we get, were: Will you write a letter?
• Then you can write the letter if you want, yes. Yeah.
• You can write it personally and use your title. But you can’t use state resources to do it.
• Jennifer, do you have enough to write an opinion that we can review? Yeah, I think so.

Summary: The Legislative Ethics Board approved the minutes from its September 8, 2025 meeting and reported that there were no employment disclosure forms. The board then discussed whether RCW 42.52.187(1) permits legislators to write letters of recommendation in a broader range of situations, including citizenship, clemency/pardon, immigration waivers, scholarships, and appointments. Members generally favored a broad reading for constituent-requested letters, while staff noted their existing advice had been narrower and suggested drafting an advisory opinion to clarify the definition and scope of “letter of recommendation.” The board also considered whether the statute’s reference to commemorations or celebrations of “persons who are not current legislators” allows use of state resources to recognize entities such as the Mariners or Seahawks. Members discussed whether “person” includes organizations under the Ethics Act’s definition, and the consensus leaned toward a plain-language reading that would allow posts about teams and other non-legislator entities, though some members suggested the language may need cleanup in the future. A third item addressed a previously retired advisory opinion concerning legislators who are attorneys and represent clients before state agencies. Staff proposed republishing or updating the opinion with current citations, but several members expressed concern that the old opinion could be read too narrowly or as implying legislators cannot do outside legal work involving agencies. The board agreed the issue needed more refinement and deferred further action to a future meeting. There was no public testimony beyond a brief check-in from Jerry Cornfield, and the meeting adjourned after a motion and second.

Transcript Highlights:

• will write the committee report. will write the committee report.
• would like to write the report? would like to write the report?
• who will be writing the report? who will be writing the report?
• And I will write the majority report. And I will write the majority report.
• And I will write the majority report. And I will write the majority report.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ,<00:32:38.720> every home that they were writing, every home that they were writing, every
• Yep. surplus lines maximum we would write up surplus lines maximum we would write up or<00:56:40.559>
• sure the larger companies who write sure the larger companies who write their<00:59:29.359> own
• <01:26:53.600> they standard market will not write it. they standard market will not write
• time when uh admitted market would write time when uh admitted market would write insurance<01:32

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Following motion in writing. Motion in writing. Mr.
• Following motion in writing. Motion in writing. Mr.
• The following motion in writing. Motion in writing. Mr.
• Following motion and writing. Motion in writing. Mr.
• The following motion in writing. Motion in writing. Mr.

Bills: SJR27, SB7, SB27, SB57, SB66, SB140, SB293, SB413, SB437, SB467, SB506, SB510, SB512, SB571, SB710, SB785, SB800, SB850, SB863, SB865, SB904, SB905, SB973, SB974, SB1191, SB1281, SB1300, SB1362, SB1494, SB1504, SB1522, SB1567, SB1579, SB1580, SB1723, SB1760, SB1838, SB1923, SB1946, SB1957, SB1964, SB2121, SB2167, SB2221, SB2321, SB2368, SB2373, SB2407, SB2431, SB2477, SB2587, SB2615, SB2807, SB2965, SB2986, SB3039, SB3047, SB3070, SB1, SB8, SB12, SB13, SB15, SB17, SB21, SB30, SB37, SB260, SB268, SB331, SB379, SB441, SB447, SB457, SB509, SB568, SB650, SB763, SB1198, SB1405, SB1506, SB1540, SB1566, SB1610, SB1637, SB1660, SB1833, SB2018, SB2024, SB2155, SB2217, SB2308, SB2337, SB2601, SB2753, SB2778, SB2878, SB2900, SB2972, SB3059, HB4, HB145, HB300, HB493, HB2011, HB2067, HB2516, HB2525, HB2885, HB2974, HB3071, HB3372, HB3556, HB3595, HB5138, HB5246, HB40, HB46, HB119, HB705, HB1545, HB2017, HB2963, HB3642, HB3909, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1234, SB2926, SB2841, SB1528, SB1854, SB317, SB1250, SB2082, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1367, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3036, SB3057, SB3043, SB3063, SB3035, SB203, SB2688, SB2522, SB2459, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB2928, SB2566, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1944, SB1232, SB1798, SB2603, SB2607, SB2683, SB1319, SB3045, SB3071, HB796, HB1523, HB5294, HB748, HB3395, HB180, HB3171, HB146, HB5596, HB5694, HB1135, HB3225, HB186, HB1449, HB3793, HB112, HB104, HB3336, HB3520, HB3320, HB5663, HB2399, HB111, HB3483, HB4580, HB3748, HB632, HB4730, HB5690, HB5689, HB3385, HB4359, HB5381, HB123, HB5606, HB1057, HB3664, HCR141, HCR40, HCR59, SR695, SCR54, HCR153, HCR166, HCR168, SJR27, SB7, SB57, SB66, SB140, SB293, SB413, SB437, SB467, SB506, SB510, SB512, SB571, SB710, SB785, SB800, SB850, SB863, SB865, SB904, SB905, SB973, SB974, SB1191, SB1281, SB1300, SB1362, SB1504, SB1522, SB1567, SB1579, SB1580, SB1723, SB1760, SB1838, SB1923, SB1946, SB1957, SB1964, SB2167, SB2221, SB2321, SB2368, SB2407, SB2477, SB2587, SB2615, SB2807, SB2965, SB2986, SB3039, SB3047, SB3070, HB40, HB119, HB705, HB1545, HB2017, HB2963, HB3642, HB3909, SB17, SB21, SB509, SB1198, SB1506, SB1833, SB2155, SB2601, SB2778, HB300, HB2011

Keywords: judicial conduct, state commission, judicial misconduct, commission membership, constitutional amendment, water infrastructure, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, water supply, environmental sustainability, school safety, emergency operations plan, multihazard plan, mandatory drill, disaster preparedness, emergency response, students with disabilities, impairments, special education, Section 504

Transcript Highlights:

• And this isn't just about writing emails.
• Um and this isn't just about, you<00:03:24.319> know,<00:03:24.560> writing<00:03:25.360
• So if you were primarily into writing and that writing is kind of taken over by a writing assistant AI
• <00:12:49.519> and if you were primarily into writing and if you were primarily into writing
• is kind of taken over by if that writing is kind of taken over by a<00:12:52.399> writing<00:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They write tickets.
• looking for opportunities to write looking for opportunities to write tickets<00:08:30.319> and
• Who gets to write that ticket? if both Who gets to write that ticket?
• >> And<00:16:01.360> write<00:16:01.600> them, >> And write them, >>
• And write them, >> right?

Bills: HB450, HB469, SB298, HB450, HB638, HB469, SB298

Keywords: HB450, judges, judicial office, constitutional amendment, Alabama Constitution, age limit, mandatory retirement, judicial eligibility, supernumerary judge, judicial retirement, state judicial retirement benefits, election law, appointment, voter approval, ballot measure, Judiciary Committee, ambulance services, balance billing, health insurance, emergency transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• So 25% will still be writing constructed responses.
• The actual writing because I don't understand how the adaptive part works.
• But yeah, most of them are going to be the writing.
• a state-level writing test.
• It wasn't. tested we didn't do a writing test.

Bills: HB8

Keywords: HB 8, Texas public school accountability, school accountability, public school transparency, STAAR, state assessments, instructionally supportive assessment program, Student Success Tool, Texas Education Agency, TEA, accountability ratings, A-F ratings, through-year assessment, benchmark testing, norm-referenced assessment, college career military readiness, CCMR, local accountability plan, school district performance, campus turnaround

Transcript Highlights:

• >> so they're they're writing our our >> so they're they're writing our our desktop<00:08
• But in order to write that office.
• ,<00:09:06.480> the writing our desktop application, the writing our desktop application,
• They're writing our payment had online.
• goes in the packet before they write goes in the packet before they write back<00:20:36.400>

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission met on March 9, 2026, with a quorum present in person and one commissioner participating from Florida. The meeting began with the swearing-in of new commissioner Joe Palumbo, who briefly introduced himself and his family and business background. The commission then approved the February 2, 2026 minutes and approved the staff budget report, with staff noting the office remained within spending parameters. Staff gave an update on the heavy workload from re-registration and reporting season, saying roughly 4,500 re-registrations and about 10,000 total forms had been processed. They credited the new online payment portal with reducing manual work and discussed ongoing LRC technology work to build a new system for desktop use, online re-registration, payment processing, and a searchable register. Commissioners asked about the timeline and current paper-based process; staff said the system is being built from scratch and that, for now, forms are still often downloaded, completed, emailed or mailed, and manually entered by staff. The commission also reviewed financial disclosure processing. Staff said all required disclosures had been received except one outstanding candidate filing, and that the candidate was still officially running, so notice was being sent by certified mail under the statute. Staff explained that their review is for completeness rather than audit-level accuracy, and that disclosures from legislators, candidates, and certain upper-management/LRC officials are posted for public access. The commission then discussed its informal advisory opinions, including how staff tracks and organizes them, and praised staff for quick turnaround before voting to enter executive session to discuss confidential complaints and informal opinions.

Transcript Highlights:

• If the commissioner doesn't write the rules, then who writes the rules?
• > then<00:16:52.000> who<00:16:52.160> writes<00:16:52.480> the write the
• rules, then who writes the write the rules, then who writes the rules?
• mean, I can answer the rule writing mean, I can answer the rule writing question<00:16:59.440>
• 02.400> sign<00:23:02.640> a mean you could write sign a mean you could write sign a note

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So it was expanded to certain areas of the state, and now we write across the entire state.
• Not all those companies are writing business right now, and most are not writing across the entire state
• the Fair Plan, we're going to write their insurance.
• But a key component to that is also going to be that we're writing in these lower-risk areas.
• or stop writing, that there wasn't a lot of places for people to go.

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee held an oversight hearing on the California Fair Plan, focused on the plan’s rapid growth, its financial stability after the January Southern California wildfires, and its role as the insurer of last resort. Fair Plan officials explained that the plan was created in 1968, is a not-for-profit involuntary association of licensed property insurers, and is intended to be a temporary safety net until policyholders can return to the admitted market. They emphasized that the plan is not a state agency or taxpayer-funded, but is regulated by the Department of Insurance and supported by member-company assessments if claims exceed available funds. Victoria Roach and Armand Feliciano said the Fair Plan has grown sharply since 2018 and especially after market pullbacks by major insurers, reaching about 575,000 policies and roughly $600 billion in exposure by spring 2025. They noted that growth is increasingly occurring in lower wildfire-risk areas, where the plan can sometimes be cheaper than the voluntary market, and said this undermines depopulation back into the private market. They also discussed recent policy expansions, including coverage for farms, higher residential and commercial limits, and pending or proposed changes such as AB 290, SB 525, and AB 226, which would add tools like a line of credit and bond access. A major portion of the hearing addressed the January wildfire losses and the plan’s financial response. Fair Plan officials said they assessed member insurers for $1 billion after determining claims and cash flow would exceed available resources, and that the process was approved quickly and paid smoothly, with more than 80% of the assessment collected within 10 days. They also described the reinsurance tower, the plan’s limited surplus, and the need for actuarially sound rates to reduce future reliance on assessments. On claims handling, they said the plan has received over 5,500 claims from the fires, has paid more than $2.9 billion so far, expects total payments near $4 billion, and has focused on advancing payments quickly for total losses and other urgent needs. Members questioned the plan’s solvency, the growth in non-wildfire areas, claim denials, smoke-loss coverage, and how depopulation works. Roach said most closed claims without payment were duplicates rather than denials, and that smoke claims require direct physical loss under the policy, with coverage determined case by case. Public commenters from the California Building Industry Association and the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of California said the Fair Plan’s growth reflects a weak voluntary market, inadequate rates, and insurer fear of future assessments, and urged support for rate increases and AB 226. The hearing concluded with no vote, but with a commitment from Fair Plan officials to follow up on unanswered questions and continue providing more transparency through public data and website disclosures.

Transcript Highlights:

• windstorm writings compare to what they write statewide.
• So the less windstorm writing, the less? The more they write windstorm, the more they are assessed.
• FairPlan writes throughout the state.
• Basically, the companies that write in Texas.
• windstorm writings bear in proportion to what they write statewide.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They're restricting their offerings to lower-risk options if they're even writing any policies at all
• And we have a lot of insurers who have said, 'We won't write policies any further.' Right.
• And we have a lot of insurers who have said we won't write policies any further.
• And I'll tell you right now, they're not writing policies up north.
• They're not writing policies in—I mean, Mercury came in.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 597, a bill to strengthen consumer protections for disaster survivors who use public adjusters. The author and the Department of Insurance said the measure would cap public adjuster fees at 15% for claims tied to declared disasters, require clearer contracts, prohibit solicitation during emergency conditions, and allow consumers to rescind contracts that were solicited during prohibited periods. Insurance industry groups supported the bill, while public adjuster representatives opposed it as written but said they were willing to work on revisions. The committee approved the bill and re-referred it to Appropriations; the roll call was ultimately recorded as 16-0. The committee then held its fourth oversight hearing on the Department of Insurance’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy, with Commissioner Ricardo Lara giving an extensive update on wildfire-related market reforms and consumer protections. He said the recent Southern California wildfires had not derailed the strategy and described actions including advance claim payments, a one-year moratorium on residential non-renewals in affected areas, a new fraud strike team, smoke-damage claim guidance, additional living expense protections, and a consumer claims tracker. He reported more than $12.1 billion in claims paid, over 37,000 claims filed, and more than 7,000 survivors assisted directly. He also discussed related bills and reforms, including AB 597, SB 495, SB 547, SB 429, SB 616, AB 888, and AB 2026. Members questioned the commissioner about the Fair Plan’s growing exposure, the $1 billion assessment, rate increases, non-renewals, underinsurance, and whether the reforms would actually stabilize the market. Lara said the assessment was already approved, that policyholders would not be hit with one large bill because insurers have two years to recover costs, and that the department was pushing insurers to use catastrophe modeling and reinsurance tools in exchange for commitments to write more policies in wildfire-distressed areas. He said the department expects to see market stabilization by 2026, though he emphasized the timeline depends on insurer participation, implementation of the new regulations, and future disaster activity. Members generally expressed support for the goals of the strategy while pressing for clearer expectations for consumers and faster action on mitigation and market reform.

Transcript Highlights:

• The chair then said, “I’m going to write the report while I’m intently listening this afternoon.
• <00:22:15.760> the<00:22:16.080> report on consent I'm going to write the report on
• Representative Reed, will you write the report?
• I asked Representative Buller if he would write the report. Any objection to this going on consent?
• the report I asked will you write the report I asked representative<00:31:00.399> Buller<00:31

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:20:51.799> any we're like you know AI can write any we're like you know AI can write any
• Not having the AI write for them, but encouraging them to write again and again and again until it's
• right she was struggling with writing right she was struggling with writing skills<00:25:25.120>
• I'm like yes that's cuz your writing I'm like yes that's cuz your writing kind<00:25:51.360>
• for them but encouraging them to write for them but encouraging them to write<00:26:12.000> again

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• agreed that 'letter of recommendation' should receive a broader interpretation, I was directed to write
• agreed that 'letter of recommendation' should receive a broader interpretation, I was directed to write
• in that language gave broad new authority about when and under what circumstances a legislator can write
• It encourages members to continue to ask ethics advisors if it's a good idea to write a letter.
• Can I write them a letter of reference?

Summary: The board approved the October 15 meeting minutes and then reviewed three employment disclosure forms involving staff or spouses employed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board and the Department of Corrections. The disclosures were approved unanimously. The board also adopted a proposed rule change to conform board rules to a prior statutory amendment that separated fines from costs. Members then discussed a draft advisory opinion interpreting the phrase “letter of recommendation” under the ethics statute. The draft would read the term broadly, allow legislators to decide when to write such letters when requested by a constituent, and reaffirm that it remains appropriate to use state resources for job references or scholarships for individuals the legislator has supervised or worked closely with at the legislature, as well as for certain gubernatorial appointments. Members generally supported the draft, but asked for possible clarification of the phrase “work closely with,” and approved the opinion as drafted with that caveat. The board also reviewed proposed future meeting dates, noting a concern that January 19 falls on Martin Luther King Jr. Day and may need to be changed. No final action was taken on the dates during the public portion. The meeting then moved toward executive session after adjourning the public portion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because we do try and write our laws so that the average person can understand them and read them.
• They can't even write a rule. >> What section are you referring to?
• So, if we were to do it that way, we would have to write a hundred statutes.
• Keep these in here; otherwise, how can we expect them to write rules if we say they're exempt from writing
• we say they're exempt from writing that we say they're exempt from writing rules >> which<01:05

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The continued conference on House Bill 609 focused on reconciling House and Senate drafts dealing with firearms and other personal defense tools, local government preemption, and agency rulemaking. Representative Leyon walked through amendment 21107H, explaining that it narrows undefined terms, clarifies that the General Court has supremacy over local regulation, allows damages actions for violations of preemption law, and adds language limiting agency rules unless specifically authorized by statute. She also described a three-year sunset and a delayed effective date for new rules so existing rules could continue temporarily while the legislature considers any needed statutory carveouts. Members then debated the practical effect of the language, especially whether it would bar agencies from adopting internal employment rules or instead require those rules to come through JCAR and be tied to express statutory authority. Several examples were discussed, including state plow drivers, corrections employees, and other workers who may need to carry personal defense tools in the field. The committee also discussed a provision making a plaintiff a prevailing party if a municipality changes a challenged policy after suit is filed, and a clause stating that good faith or advice of counsel is not a defense, though it may be considered in mitigation. The discussion narrowed to the difference between the House approach, which some members read as an absolute prohibition on agency rules in these areas, and the Senate approach, which some members said would allow rules only when an agency can point to express enabling authority and JCAR can review them. Members agreed that the goal was to prevent agencies from adopting rules that conflict with the statute while still allowing legitimate safety-related regulations where the legislature has authorized them. The conference took a recess and later resumed with the chair stating the parties had reached an agreement in principle based on the latest Senate language, and Representative Leyon was asked to continue reviewing the draft line by line for remaining concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• Staff will review that and maybe ask some more questions and get something more formal in writing for
• So you'll have something in writing by then, but then you'll also be available for additional Q and A
• Staff will review that and maybe ask some more questions and get something more formal in writing for
• So you'll have something in writing by then, but then you'll also be available for additional Q and A
• Staff will review that and maybe ask some more questions and get something more formal in writing for

Summary: The Select Committee on Pension Policy Executive Committee approved the June minutes and received a brief update from Assistant Attorney General Jesse Yoder, who had no litigation updates but offered to answer questions. Actuary Michael Harbour then previewed the September full committee meeting, which will include a report on the financial condition of the DRS-administered pension plans and the state actuary’s recommended economic assumptions. He also cautioned that any actuarial pricing done over the summer could change if assumptions are updated, and suggested taking votes on potential legislation later in the interim, possibly in November or December. A discussion followed about the Left 1 benefit improvement and where the funding came from. Harbour said the benefit tied to SSB 5791 (2022) was paid from the Left 1 trust fund, while a separate Left 2 benefit improvement was in SHB 1701, and he agreed to double-check the issue with DRS after members raised conflicting information. Members then discussed the broader Left 1 study, including whether IRS approval is a key barrier and whether options are limited to merger or closure. Several members asked to hear from Ice Miller, which has been advising on the tax issues, and staff said the committee should receive a written response in the next couple of weeks and could have Ice Miller appear in October. The committee reviewed and adjusted its interim work plan. September will include the actuarial presentations, a more detailed Left 1 study update, and a presentation on PERS and TERS Plan 1 COLAs, including a recap of the bill recommended this year and initial considerations for an ad hoc COLA. October is expected to include DRS administrative and performance updates, with November reserved for the State Investment Board update and a final Left 1 study update, and December may include an educational presentation on excess compensation. Members also requested a future briefing on the month-of-death benefit discussion. The September agenda was adopted, correspondence materials were noted, and the meeting adjourned.