Transcript Highlights:

• And finally, all of our grants are required to submit an evaluation plan at the start of the grant to
• describe how they plan to evaluate their outcomes.
• They are required to submit an evaluation report at the conclusion to tell the story of their grant and
• We are evaluating the resource, the funding level for the DOJ's federal accountability work in the May
• We are evaluating the resource, the funding level for the DOJ's federal accountability work in the May

Summary: The hearing focused on the Missing and Murdered Indigenous People (MMIP) grant program under the Board of State and Community Corrections and related Department of Justice efforts. BSCC reported that it now administers 36 MMIP grants across three cohorts, with awards ranging from $436,000 to $1 million, plus five collaborative grants at $2 million each, totaling $35.4 million awarded to federally recognized tribes. Testimony from tribal leaders and grantees described how the funding supports prevention, family advocacy, domestic violence services, law enforcement coordination, youth programming, culturally grounded healing, and new tribal public safety positions such as investigators, social workers, and drone operators. Speakers repeatedly emphasized that the crisis is longstanding, tied to generational trauma, and that the grant has helped build trust and infrastructure in tribal communities. Several witnesses and committee members urged continued and preferably ongoing funding, noting that demand now exceeds available one-time money. BSCC and tribal representatives described outreach efforts that increased participation from four applicants in cohort one to 20 in cohort two and more applicants than funding in cohort three. Tribes also raised implementation concerns, especially the burden of quarterly narrative reporting, limited staff capacity, and the need for flexible administration. BSCC said it uses steering committees, separate small- and large-project categories, orientations, monitoring visits, and technical assistance to support grantees. Tribal leaders and advocates stressed that the program should remain accessible without requiring a waiver of tribal sovereignty. The second major topic was DOJ’s update on AB 3099, the Tribal Assistance Program, and the tribal police pilot under AB 134. DOJ officials said the Office of Native American Affairs and the Division of Law Enforcement have been conducting outreach, trainings, listening sessions, and coordination with tribal, local, state, and federal partners to address Public Law 280 jurisdictional issues, improve reporting and data, and support Feather Alert and MMIP-related resources. DOJ said the AB 3099 report is in internal review and that the tribal police pilot is moving forward with the Yurok Tribe as a participant, with a July 1, 2026 start date. DOJ and tribal witnesses said the pilot’s main barriers are cost and, for some tribes, the waiver of sovereign immunity. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with broad support for expanding and sustaining MMIP-related funding and infrastructure.

Transcript Highlights:

• This evaluation report status update is running behind schedule. So we're trying to work with...
• So we're going to do the 1:30, the juvenile justice evaluation report status now.
• On juvenile justice evaluation report status update. Thank you two for being flexible.
• Evaluation at LFC. With me at the table is Clayton Loba, program evaluator.
• who missed it before, and let me see if I can remember, so we put our of 130 the juvenile justice Evaluate

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, but do you envision that it's going to evaluate the impact of the federal imposition of the mandatory
• Full and Individual Initiative Evaluation (FIIE) offsets will increase from $250 to $1,000 per evaluation
• But it starts with an intensity model that we relate. to how schools get, how schools get their evaluations
• Embedding a cost for full and individual evaluations for students who are evaluated for special education
• You want to be able to get evaluations for special needs.

Bills: SB27, SB1494, SB2121, SB2373, SB2431, SB1, SB8, SB12, SB13, SB15, SB30, SB37, SB260, SB268, SB331, SB379, SB441, SB447, SB457, SB568, SB650, SB763, SB1405, SB1506, SB1540, SB1566, SB1610, SB1637, SB1660, SB2018, SB2024, SB2217, SB2308, SB2337, SB2601, SB2753, SB2878, SB2900, SB2972, SB3059, HB4, HB40, HB46, HB119, HB145, HB300, HB493, HB705, HB1545, HB2011, HB2017, HB2067, HB2516, HB2885, HB2963, HB2974, HB3071, HB3372, HB3556, HB3595, HB3642, HB3909, HB5138, HB5246, 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, SR634, SR687, SR703, SR709, SR715, SB1494, SB2121, SB2373, SB2431, HB46, SB1, SB8, SB12, SB13, SB15, SB37, SB260, SB331, SB379, SB441, SB447, SB457, SB568, SB763, SB1405, SB1540, SB1566, SB2018, SB2308, SB2337, SB2878, SB3059, HB705, HB2017, HB2067, HB3071, HB3372, HB3556, HB3595, HB3909, HB5246

Keywords: elections, local governance, political subdivisions, general elections, Texas Election Code, data brokers, personal data, regulation, business entities, consumer protection, financial exploitation, artificial intelligence, phishing, legal liability, criminal offense, civil penalty, foreign language, study abroad, higher education, language credit

Transcript Highlights:

• this and the second round of POCs as a pilot in 2025-26, not only for the administration to better evaluate
• we recommend continuing monthly meetings with the administration that were mentioned on the EO to evaluate
• Evaluate and refine this new process and for continued conversations about some of the ongoing work to
• So that the state and the departments that are interested in participating in these projects can evaluate
• being done for $1 and there were a bunch of proof of concepts, right, which the department need to evaluate

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So how do we really tell the story and evaluate our accomplishments and successes?
• the efficacy of these investments how are you evaluating what's cost-effective and then I guess to kind
• That incident, to evaluate that fuels treatment against the wildfire, to write a narrative and a report
• you to do exactly what you've just reported, which is start to create much more data so we could evaluate
• So, we do know that historically there hasn't been a lot of requirements for programs to evaluate their

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• a far more comprehensive and robust policy that we use today, and that ultimately results in an evaluation
• a far more comprehensive and robust policy that we use today, and that ultimately results in an evaluation
• a far more comprehensive and robust policy that we use today, and that ultimately results in an evaluation
• :31:32.799> in<00:31:33.200> an ultimately results in an ultimately results in an evaluation
• of people who are um who are evaluation of people who are um who are in<00:31:38.080> our<00:

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House File 435 was taken up with an author's amendment that added a definition of “female,” “woman,” and “girl” based on biological sex. The committee debated the amendment at length, with supporters saying it was needed for clarity and opponents arguing it was unscientific, dehumanizing, and imported from outside model legislation. The amendment was adopted, and the bill was laid over because no fiscal note had yet been received. As amended, HF 435 would require the commissioner of Corrections to house only biological females at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Shakopee and to transfer any nonbiological females out within seven days of enactment. Chair Franson described it as a common-sense women’s rights and human rights bill intended to protect incarcerated women. Alicia Beckman, a former Shakopee GED teacher, testified in support, saying the current policy had allowed biological males with violent histories into the facility and created fear, retraumatization, and safety concerns for staff and inmates. Several testifiers opposed the bill. Deva Guy, Lucy Ailia G., Reverend Dr. Justin Saia Tannis, and Jess Braverman argued that the bill would endanger transgender women, scapegoat a vulnerable minority, and conflict with research, the Prison Rape Elimination Act, and constitutional protections. They urged the committee to focus instead on broader prison conditions and safety issues. Committee members also questioned Department of Corrections Commissioner Paul Schnell about the placement process; he explained that transgender placements are reviewed through a multi-step process involving behavioral health and medical staff, a gender identity committee, and final review by the deputy commissioner and commissioner. He said 49 people systemwide have identified as transgender. The discussion ended with the bill laid over and the chair noting that a constitutional challenge would likely follow if the bill became law.

Transcript Highlights:

• They typically ask for the IEP and look at the date of the last evaluation, not the date of the last
• In high school, your parent may have had an evaluation for you, which happens every three years.
• As a sophomore at 15, you may have been re-evaluated, and senior year they may have come to your parent
• That evaluation doesn't tell us anything new; they have a learning disability, they always will.
• have a policy that says if the evaluation isn't within the last 18 months, we can't take this as proof

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Higher Education held its fourth public hearing, opening with remarks about the importance of protecting and expanding access to higher education amid federal disinvestment. The chairs also announced future informational hearings on the impact of federal cuts and on ASAP models. The hearing then focused on several bills, beginning with S. 951/H. 1462, An Act to Support College Students in Recovery, which would require recovery-focused housing on public campuses and expand naloxone access and overdose training. Senator Rausch, medical professionals, students, and advocates testified in support, emphasizing the prevalence of overdose risk among college students, the value of recovery housing, and the need for campus naloxone; committee members asked about implementation details and the existing state pilot program. Deb Schmill and Rep. Tarski gave especially personal testimony in favor of the bill, and the committee discussed broadening the naloxone language to opioid reversal agents. The committee also heard testimony on H. 1461, which would expand MassReconnect scholarships to practical nursing students at vocational and technical schools to help address the long-term care workforce shortage. Rep. Stanley argued that vocational schools graduate more practical nursing students than community colleges and serve many low-income students in areas without nearby community college programs. The committee then took up H. 1433, which would require public higher education institutions to accept IEPs and 504 plans as sufficient documentation for disability accommodations. Advocates from the National Center for Learning Disabilities described the high cost and burden of repeat testing, the lifelong nature of disabilities, and the need for more uniform access across campuses; committee members raised questions about documentation freshness, campus autonomy, and how to preserve the integrity of accommodations. Later, the committee heard S. 919/H. 1454 on modernizing the Community College Endowment Match Program so community colleges could receive state matching funds for current-use donations as well as endowments and capital gifts. Community college foundation leaders said the change would help fund immediate student needs such as food pantries, child care, emergency aid, and equipment. The hearing then moved to faculty-related bills: S. 933 on UMass faculty rights and tenure transparency, S. 930/H. 3948 on contingent faculty rights and career advancement, and S. 940/H. 1429 on an Adjunct Bill of Rights. Testimony from faculty and union representatives focused on low pay, lack of benefits, job insecurity, and the need for clearer pathways to full-time positions and fairer treatment for adjuncts who teach large shares of courses. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and asked clarifying questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• retroactivity piece of this is one PBM paying back to January 1 on something that they completely evaluated
• On something that they completely evaluated.
• saying it, which is basically two months when two of the other big three—that's 80% of the market—evaluated
• retroactivity piece of this is one PBM paying back to January 1st on something that they completely evaluated
• It's not only a regulator saying that. on something that they completely evaluated.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Insurance met on May 6, 2026, and first reported HB 1241 favorably. That bill, by Chairman Furman, requires insurers to check with DCFS before paying certain insurance settlements to determine whether the recipient owes delinquent child support, and to withhold and remit arrears if found. DCFS explained that Louisiana already has intercepts and other collection tools, but no current mechanism for insurance settlements. Senators raised concerns about notice to obligors and about liability if insurers fail to withhold, but the bill was advanced without objection. The committee then heard HB 870, which would require health insurers and PBMs to cover lower-cost generic or biosimilar drugs when available and to use utilization management no more restrictively on those drugs. Supporters said the bill would improve access and lower patient costs by using wholesale acquisition cost as the comparison point. Opponents, including Louisiana Blue and the AFL-CIO, argued that WAC ignores rebates and net cost, could force plans to cover higher-cost biosimilars first, and could increase premiums and disrupt ERISA and fully insured plan design. The committee adopted a technical amendment set and then a second amendment set that added notice and reporting requirements tied to net cost calculations, and HB 870 was reported favorably as amended. Several other bills were moved with little or no opposition. HB 1176, concerning Medicare Advantage coverage for integrative cancer treatments such as cold cap therapy, cryotherapy, and acupuncture, was amended to change the effective date and then reported favorably. HB 1196, dealing with colorectal cancer screening follow-up colonoscopies, was also amended and reported favorably. HB 1162, a consumer protection bill requiring DOI to verify that a contractor named on a first-party property damage check is licensed in Louisiana, was amended and reported favorably. HB 826, which modernizes insurance referral rules to allow referrals by email or website address, was reported favorably. The committee also heard HB 1151 on insurer investment limits and solvency protections, and HB 1236 on pharmacy reimbursement and copay maximizer programs; both drew substantial testimony and concern, especially over retroactivity, PBM cost allocation, and whether copay maximizers shift costs to patients, but the transcript cuts off before final action on HB 1236.

Transcript Highlights:

• So can you commit to applying CDC and FDA standards when evaluating complaints, even if you personally
• should be handled differently, can you speak a little bit to what The agency is doing currently to evaluate
• That has helped to inform that third bucket, which is investments that are a result of that evaluation
• I join my colleagues in saying that we will be very, very carefully evaluating the work of this department
• I join my colleagues in saying that we will be very, very carefully evaluating the work of this department

Summary: The committee first considered the confirmation of Dr. John Lattell to the Board of Medicine. In questioning, senators focused heavily on his views about abortion, vaccines, ivermectin, and the role of CDC/FDA guidance in board discipline cases. Dr. Lattell said the board applies Florida statutes and works through probable cause panels and legal counsel, but he also expressed strong pro-life views, skepticism of federal health guidance, and criticism of vaccines and some medical practices. Supporters praised his long medical career, military service, and family medicine background, while opponents argued his views could prevent him from being objective in disciplinary matters. The committee voted to recommend him for confirmation to the full Senate, with Senators Polsky and Ruson voting no. The committee then took up the confirmation of Taylor Hatch as Secretary of the Department of Children and Families. Hatch described her background in state human services and outlined priorities centered on accountability, data, lived experience, and improving service delivery. Senators asked about SNAP error rates, Hope Florida, legislative analyses, staffing, and the department’s handling of child welfare and medically complex cases. Hatch said the department was reducing SNAP error rates, that Hope Florida uses navigators to connect people with community resources and self-sufficiency supports, and that DCF is working with the Department of Health and other partners to improve investigations and accountability in child welfare. She also said the agency is reviewing medically complex cases and strengthening oversight of community-based care providers through contracts, audits, and proposed funding-model changes. A substantial portion of the Hatch discussion centered on whether the department had been responsive to legislative requests and whether it had provided timely bill analyses. Senators also pressed her on Hope Florida staffing, the number of participants served, and the Hope Florida Foundation’s compliance and legal oversight. Hatch said the foundation is undergoing a financial audit and that the department is relying on required reports and ongoing investigations. The transcript ends amid continued questioning about a community-based care contractor’s finances, related-party transactions, and whether further forensic audits or repayments are needed.

Transcript Highlights:

• So can you commit to applying CDC, FDA standards when evaluating complaints, even if you personally disagree
• Can you speak a little bit to what the agency is doing currently to evaluate and maybe propose policy
• That has helped to inform that third bucket, which is investments that are a result of that evaluation
• I join my colleagues in saying that we will be very, very carefully evaluating the work of this department
• I join my colleagues in saying that we will be very, very carefully evaluating the work of this department

Summary: The committee first considered the confirmation of Dr. John Lattell to the Florida Board of Medicine. In questioning, senators focused heavily on his views on abortion, vaccines, ivermectin, hormonal birth control, and the role of CDC/FDA guidance in board discipline cases. Dr. Lattell said the board should apply Florida statutes, described himself as strongly pro-life and skeptical of some federal health guidance, and said he would be sympathetic when judging fellow physicians because of his own experience in practice. Supporters praised his medical background, military service, and family medicine experience, while opponents argued his stated views could affect his ability to fairly discipline other doctors. The committee voted 5-2 to recommend confirmation, with Senators Polsky and Rouson voting no. The committee then took up the confirmation of Taylor Hatch as Secretary of the Florida Department of Children and Families. Hatch outlined her background at DCF and APD and described department priorities including streamlining services, improving child welfare and behavioral health systems, expanding peer support, and reducing SNAP error rates. Members asked detailed questions about Hope Florida, the number and role of Hope Navigators, agency responsiveness on bill analyses, and accountability for community-based care contractors. Hatch said Hope Florida is a partnership-based navigation effort aimed at self-sufficiency, that 143 Hope Navigators are in place, and that the department is working to improve transparency and oversight through contracts, audits, and a proposed funding model. Senators also pressed Hatch on the Hope Florida Foundation’s compliance history and on forensic audits of community-based care agencies, especially Northwest Florida Health Network. Hatch said the foundation is now in compliance and under audit, and that the contractor had completed corrective actions and was operating within current accountability limits. She said DCF had not yet conducted new forensic audits under her tenure but was preparing another round and was considering using contracted-services dollars to support that work. The discussion ended with continued questioning on oversight, staffing, and whether the agency could provide more formal bill analyses going forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• What this bill does is expand one of the key evaluation factors.
• What this bill does is expand one of the key evaluation factors.
• It simply ensures that legislators, regulators, and the public can evaluate whether rates are aligned
• then it also puts into statute a requirement that the commission have an independent third party evaluate
• , and that the Commission, instead of the utilities themselves, appoints independent monitors to evaluate

Bills: HB2099, HB2263, HB2264, HB2330, HB2341, HB2492, HB2757, HB2782, HB2843, HB2889, HB2912, HB2915, HB2918, HB4025, HB4100, HCR2020, HCR2057

Keywords: water storage, long-term storage credits, groundwater management, drought contingency, Arizona water regulations, Colorado River, replenishment, groundwater savings facility, groundwater storage, underground water storage, active management area, irrigation non-expansion area, Arizona water law, water rights, water replenishment, recharge, water conservation district, multi-county water conservation district, CAP water, Central Arizona Project

Summary: The committee heard a series of water, energy, housing, and environmental bills, with several measures amended before passage. House Bill 2099, as amended, would limit long-term storage credits and related CAP water storage during declared Colorado River shortages; water utilities, CAP, Phoenix, and other water interests raised concerns about flexibility, contracts, and the law of the river, while the sponsor said the bill was intended to address shortage conditions. The committee adopted the Griffin amendment and passed the bill 6-3. House Bill 2263, also amended, would restrict where Colorado River water diverted for replenishment in an AMA may be stored; CAP, tribal counsel, and AMWA opposed it as too restrictive and potentially excluding existing facilities, but the bill passed 6-3 after amendment. House Bill 2264, requiring the University of Arizona to promote Arizona history and the five Cs through the mining museum, passed unanimously. House Bill 2330 and House Bill 2341, both concerning certificates of environmental compatibility for energy projects, passed 6-3 after amendments expanding siting factors to include character of an area and known off-takers, respectively. House Bill 2918, which would end certain tax benefits for renewable energy and storage equipment after 2026, also passed 6-3. House Bill 2889, appropriating $1 million for uranium contamination monitoring and a statewide registry with tribal epidemiology partnerships, passed unanimously after discussion about moving the program to ADEQ and adjusting the reporting date. House Bill 2492, which would bar state and local urban growth boundaries that prevent new development, passed narrowly 4-3 with one present and two absent. House Bill 2782, focused on utility rate transparency and regulatory assets, passed 5-3 after a late amendment and a motion to suspend committee rules for amendment distribution. House Bill 4025, creating a study committee on gasoline and petroleum refineries, passed 6-3, and HCR 2057 supporting a geothermal permitting roadmap passed unanimously. HCR 2020, supporting housing developments outside designated service areas under certain groundwater conditions, passed 6-2. House Bill 4100, requiring notice to customers about potential water-rate increases if CAP water is lost, drew concerns about public confusion and negotiation impacts; testimony from municipal water users opposed the bill as too speculative and difficult to implement, and the transcript ends while that bill is still under discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• The JLARC study evaluates state agencies and programs, and our work includes performance audits, and
• The legislature asked us to evaluate the impact of 10 new producer licenses that will be issued under
• We weren't able to evaluate the impact of these 10 future producer-processor licenses, but we could look
• were doing your audit around the data analytics component of traceability in the market, did you evaluate
• We did not evaluate how well these other systems work for other states, but I can tell you that states

Summary: The committee began with a work session on the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee’s cannabis market study, presented by JLARC staff member Susanna Pratt. The report found Washington’s cannabis production in 2023 was likely two to three times higher than retail sales, with production estimated at 292,000 to 443,000 pounds of THC versus 139,000 pounds sold. Pratt explained that canopy data are inconsistent and that the Liquor and Cannabis Board’s traceability system is incomplete and unreliable, limiting data-driven regulation, tax verification, recall tracking, and diversion enforcement. JLARC recommended that LCB submit a plan by the end of 2025 for obtaining accurate licensee data by the end of 2026; LCB partially concurred and said a 2027 timeline may be more realistic. JLARC also concluded that the social equity producer licenses would likely have only a minimal effect on statewide production capacity, and suggested the legislature consider broader ways to increase equity in the industry. Members asked about the slow issuance of social equity licenses and about comparable traceability systems in other states. The committee then heard a series of presentations on fraud and scam prevention. Paul Benda of the American Bankers Association described the scale of fraud losses, the role of telecom spoofing, social media scam ads, SIM farms, and crypto ATMs, and argued for a shared-responsibility approach involving banks, telecoms, and platforms. Katie Clark of IQ Credit Union described member-to-member fraud, romance scams, and the operational and financial impacts on credit unions, and recommended better information sharing, safe harbors for returning scam-related funds, and stronger fraud education. Kyle Innes of SIFMA highlighted investor fraud and Washington’s 2009 report-and-hold law, which he said helped shape similar protections in most states, and emphasized the need for better communication among financial firms, APS, and law enforcement. Brian Gerard and Ali Higgs from the Department of Financial Institutions discussed “pig butchering” and other investment scams, focusing on how scammers build trust through social media, dating apps, fake websites, and crypto schemes before extracting funds. Across the fraud presentations, witnesses repeatedly stressed consumer education, interagency information sharing, and stronger controls on telecom, social media, and crypto ATM activity. Members asked about model laws from other states, the role of financial education in schools, and whether crypto ATMs should be regulated or banned. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're gonna finish our annual evaluations; we're actually seeing an increase in active Membership, so
• And Madam Chair, Representative Lujan, like I say, our evaluations should be done by the end of the month
• Obviously, we're responding by adjusting legislation, and it sounds like we're going to need to re-evaluate
• leaning into and supporting this, and I think it's an opportunity for the rest of the ecosystem to evaluate
• And it's a really important transition point that we evaluate.

Transcript Highlights:

• Assessment, teacher preparation, teacher evaluation, professional development for our leaders, licensure
• And evaluation that we will use to measure success. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
• If we truly need bilingual teachers in New Mexico, that's something that we need to evaluate as well.
• But then, even on top of that, you have hopefully an inventory of evaluations from the LFC that could
• Soon, but that is the hope, and we try to collaborate with our program evaluation staff when they do

Transcript Highlights:

• At this point, we're evaluating what they're submitting to determine what we're going to do one way or
• We are in the process of trying to evaluate many of those sites.
• They're going to have to be evaluated.
• What are you guys evaluating regarding the economics of these projects?
• The review and evaluation of these projects is critical.

Transcript Highlights:

• ensure better delivery, service, or compatibility, and require documentation of the justification, evaluation
• the GLO, county clerks, and the Department of Information Resources to implement and rigorously evaluate
• HB 3923 also encourages upward mobility within state employment by requiring an evaluation of ways to
• We're not as concerned as much about the evaluation and classification of state jobs as what's been left
• Upon evaluating and doing the analysis of that, we see that low pay is the main driver of turnover, making

Bills: HB111

Summary: The committee heard a long series of House bills, with most measures laid out by Senate sponsors and then left pending after brief public testimony. Early bills focused on construction and licensing issues, including HB 305 on prompt payment for public construction audits, HB 5093 on restoring public access to notary contact information, HB 2037 on updating landlord-tenant repair and security deposit rules, HB 4214 on a centralized public information request contact database, and HB 5435 exempting higher education institutions from a 90-day notice requirement for certain public-private partnership projects. Testimony was generally supportive on these bills, and no votes were taken; each was left pending. The committee also considered several transparency and regulatory bills. HB 111 would expand the Public Information Act to certain nonprofit state associations and narrow some attorney-client and working-paper exceptions, with supporters arguing it would improve oversight of public funds and critics questioning the scope and thresholds. HB 5129 would protect occupational license holders’ personal identifying information from disclosure without consent, HB 4350 would allow peace officers to redact personal information from online real property records, HB 4748 would authorize multiple-award state purchasing contracts, and HB 4765 would clean up code enforcement officer licensing rules. HB 4134 would allow motor vehicle creditors to charge limited fees for electronic payment options while requiring a free alternative, and HB 1043 would direct a study of blockchain-based property title records; both drew testimony, with some concern about the practical effects and vendor implications of the blockchain study. Several bills addressed insurance, workforce, and digital-asset regulation. HB 3520 would reduce the insurance coverage required for transportation network companies during the period when a driver is en route to pick up a passenger, drawing support from Texans for Lawsuit Reform and opposition from trial lawyers who argued the higher coverage better protects the public. HB 3320 would create a self-insurance pool for religious institutions, with TDI explaining it would still be regulated but operate under a special statutory framework. HB 4233 would modernize rules for digital asset service providers by removing certain auditor-access requirements and updating reporting and licensing provisions. HB 3923 would reduce bachelor’s-degree requirements for some state jobs, though Every Texan argued low pay, not degree requirements, is the main driver of turnover. HB 4518 would create a legal structure for decentralized unincorporated nonprofit associations tied to blockchain governance; business law experts opposed it as unnecessary and potentially risky, while crypto advocates supported it. Finally, HB 1803 would join an interstate compact for dentists and dental hygienists, with supporters citing workforce shortages and opponents saying Texas already licenses quickly and that the compact could weaken state oversight. Throughout the hearing, the committee repeatedly closed testimony and left bills pending, and a quorum was eventually established before later items were heard.

Transcript Highlights:

• Section six clarifies that the department has authority to assess and evaluate, not investigate, non-compliance
• 44.560> and department has authority to assess and department has authority to assess and evaluate
• <00:09:45.519> not<00:09:45.920> investigate<00:09:46.959> uh evaluate not investigate
• uh evaluate not investigate uh non-compliance<00:09:48.080> with<00:09:48.720> uh<00:09
• Section 15, in the middle of page 39, is new language regarding authorizer performance evaluation reporting

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• These proposed projects are then evaluated for alignment with our strategic plans, and then projects
• In addition, in 2018,... ...the university launched an initiative to re-evaluate and rate the inventory
• This evaluation revealed nearly $13 billion in needed seismic renovations across the 10 UC campuses.
• And we do use a scoring matrix to evaluate where those projects would land in terms of what we would
• Thank you. matrix to evaluate where those projects would land in terms of what we would ask the state

Summary: The committee’s first major discussion focused on higher education facilities across UC, CSU, and the community colleges, with Chair Alvarez framing the issue as a final budget hearing before the May Revise. The LAO presented findings that campuses have grown substantially in buildings and square footage, while classroom and lab utilization remains below legislative standards and deferred maintenance backlogs continue to rise. The LAO also emphasized that the state and segments lack comprehensive data on capital renewal spending and recommended better reporting, clearer funding targets, and long-term planning for renewal and maintenance. UC, CSU, and community college representatives each described large five-year capital plans, aging facilities, seismic and deferred maintenance needs, and the role of student housing, while noting that construction costs are rising faster than inflation. Members questioned the segments about debt service, utilization rates, and how projects are prioritized. UC said its debt service tied to state support is about $665 million annually and described a $30 billion five-year capital financial plan, including housing, medical centers, and building renewal. CSU said it has about $31 billion in five-year needs and more than $8 billion in deferred maintenance, with funding coming from a mix of state-related and one-time sources since the state shifted capital responsibility to CSU. Community colleges said their unmet facilities needs total about $33.5 billion and explained their use of a scoring matrix and FUSION system to rank projects. The chair and members pressed all three systems to better distinguish between projects that are truly shovel-ready and those that are long-term needs, and discussed whether facilities condition data, total cost of ownership, and more standardized metrics should guide future bond proposals. The committee then turned to Proposition 2 and the Governor’s proposed community college capital outlay projects. The Department of Finance said Prop. 2 provides $1.5 billion for community colleges and that the Governor’s budget proposes 29 projects, with two continuing Prop. 51 projects also included. The LAO supported the overall use of the funds but raised concerns about the current 65/35 split between modernization and growth, the unusually large share of gymnasium projects, and some scoring metrics that favor larger campuses and certain regions. Community college officials said the scoring system was developed through participatory governance and would take one to two years to revise, but they supported the funding and agreed to follow up on questions about project categories and the rationale for the weighting. Members also suggested giving more weight to modernization, regional access, and intersegmental or collaborative projects. A final item addressed the CalKids program. The Department of Finance proposed $56,000 ongoing General Fund for three positions, while the LAO recommended approving two positions but rejecting a manager position until the current $7.5 million marketing campaign is evaluated. ScholarShare’s executive director said CalKids has enrolled more than 5 million children, with nearly 600,000 claims and over $45 million distributed, and argued that additional staff and outreach are needed to reach a goal of 1 million claimed scholarships by the end of 2025 and to implement AB 2808. Members asked about marketing effectiveness, data sharing, and eligibility rules, and the program said it is expanding partnerships with Cradle to Career and CSAC. No final vote was taken in the hearing, and the chair indicated the facilities item would be held open.

Transcript Highlights:

• Have completed their evaluations.
• So it was a process audit, yeah, it was a process audit, and they went through and they evaluated everything
• that they were supposed to evaluate, and it actually came back with good news that it was in fact a
• We evaluate all our work and we have multiple processes to evaluate.
• We use many quality tools to evaluate our work from our Plan to Study Act, our plus deltas, but also.

Transcript Highlights:

• Embedded costs for offsets for full and individual evaluations is an important part of this for basically
• with the acronym F-I-I-E's for students that are evaluated for special education services.
• They need to be able to do these special evaluations and it's an important part of identity. the issues
• you know, quite a mind-expanding because we weren't even paying for even a portion of the basic evaluation
• Senate Bill 2910 by Miles relating to the evaluation of an application. for low-income housing tax credits

Bills: SJR 12, SJR 81, SCR 39, SB 22, SB 32, SB 241, SB 393, SB 414, SB 458, SB 464, SB 568, SB 583, SB 609, SB 660, SB 693, SB 731, SB 732, SB 746, SB 783, SB 785, SB 897, SB 993, SB 996, SB 1008, SB 1029, SB 1035, SB 1036, SB 1120, SB 1122, SB 1147, SB 1163, SB 1188, SB 1197, SB 1209, SB 1227, SB 1245, SB 1267, SB 1307, SB 1321, SB 1332, SB 1386, SB 1394, SB 1396, SB 1470, SB 1494, SB 1537, SB 1596, SB 1598, SB 1610, SB 1664, SB 1814, SB 1822, SB 1841, SB 1948, SB 2065, SB 2155, SB 2406, SB 2407, SJR 12, SJR 36, SJR 81, SJR 50, SJR 4, SCR 22, SCR 12, SCR 39, SB 765, SB 62, SB 666, SB 888, SB 687, SB 847, SB 1248, SB 504, SB 305, SB 296, SB 284, SB 241, SB 304, SB 1023, SB 204, SB 609, SB 670, SB 850, SB 854, SB 413, SB 1346, SB 1033, SB 1220, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 1539, SB 447, SB 1119, SB 1505, SB 1215, SB 1302, SB 583, SB 673, SB 681, SB 1172, SB 955, SB 957, SB 1120, SB 541, SB 266, SB 1415, SB 53, SB 1352, SB 785, SB 1450, SB 1502, SB 1566, SB 414, SB 1062, SB 711, SB 746, SB 1404, SB 1448, SB 507, SB 1026, SB 1349, SB 1355, SB 1433, SB 1434, SB 1596, SB 1403, SB 667, SB 1059, SB 1567, SB 310, SB 311, SB 505, SB 1209, SB 1210, SB 1470, SB 264, SB 1029, SB 1358, SB 1364, SB 1569, SB 1376, SB 1228, SB 519, SB 1350, SB 462, SB 827, SB 1585, SB 1396, SB 1484, SB 1273, SB 927, SB 1227, SB 1229, SB 1353, SB 1464, SB 1709, SB 1729, SB 1733, SB 1744, SB 1772, SB 1841, SB 1147, SB 1008, SB 2016, SB 1173, SB 1163, SB 996, SB 568, SB 1370, SB 1321, SB 1101, SB 860, SB 993, SB 693, SB 1610, SB 1537, SB 1332, SB 1307, SB 963, SB 493, SB 984, SB 619, SB 1122, SB 455, SB 522, SB 1057, SB 1239, SB 1254, SB 1255, SB 1259, SB 1341, SB 1664, SB 1877, SB 464, SB 1277, SB 32, SB 732, SB 660, SB 731, SB 921, SB 268, SB 1822, SB 1188, SB 1589, SB 397, SB 1058, SB 1036, SB 1267, SB 2112, SB 1930, SB 532, SB 1035, SB 2155, SB 508, SB 292, SB 291, SB 901, SB 1333, SB 1436, SB 1494, SB 964, SB 779, SB 1378, SB 2312, SB 1719, SB 1386, SB 287, SB 2143, SB 1245, SB 261, SB 1247, SB 1948, SB 2406, SB 2407, SB 1882, SB 1197, SB 1814, SB 618, SB 38, SB 393, SB 2065, SB 1371, SB 1394, SB 1365, SB 2243, SB 2226, SB 2039, SB 1919, SB 1895, SB 1598, SB 1493, SB 1810, SB 1791, SB 1706, SB 1644, SB 1238, SB 783, SB 458, SB 22, SB 651, SB 897, SB 1809, SB 1080, SB 745, SB 826, SB 989, SB 1320, SB 1437, SB 2320, SB 2289, SB 1171, SB 664, SB 1637, SB 2064, SB 868, SJR 40, SJR 27, SCR 38, SCR 37, SB 1079, SB 1243, SB 1504, SB 1851, SB 1879, SB 2237, SB 1257, SB 2034, SB 1522, SB 883, SB 249, SB 1318, SB 1151, SB 596, SB 1191, SB 226, SB 570, SB 870, SB 991, SB 60, SB 365, SB 1067, SB 1786, SB 326, SB 1401, SB 1592, SB 1728, SB 1265, SB 586, SB 529, SB 217, SB 209, SB 1923, SB 1559, SB 1839, SB 387, SB 1874, SB 1872, SB 1873, SB 1921, SB 1883, SB 1677, SB 95, SB 1620, SB 1838, SB 2024, SB 2429, SB 1999, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 2166, SB 871, SB 510, SB 33, SB 2420, SB 1860, SB 1541, SB 1316, SB 1314, SB 1313, SB 1426, SB 1398, SB 1869, SB 1750, SB 1871, SB 36, SB 855, SB 1233, SB 760, SB 2425, SB 2037, SB 1758, SB 1759, SB 2365, SB 1924, SB 762, SB 1271, SB 1818, SB 605, SB 1405, SB 1762, SB 1968, SB 1977, SB 2077, SB 2148, SB 2321, SB 1967, SB 1662, SB 1663, SB 2124, SB 2204

Keywords: parental rights, education, constitutional amendment, school choice, child education, tax exemption, ad valorem, tangible personal property, income production, border security, southern border, federal immigration policy, illegal immigration, cartels, transnational cartels, fentanyl, drug trafficking, human trafficking, Operation Lone Star, Texas border

Summary: The meeting primarily focused on educational reforms, particularly in special education funding. Notably, Senator Bettencourt laid out the transformative impacts of Senate Bill 568, which aims to lift a historical cap on special education funding that affected approximately 775,000 students. The discussions included plans for an intensity-based funding model that could ensure fair distribution of resources depending on individual needs, thereby enhancing educational support for diverse learning requirements. Senators acknowledged past failures in the special education framework, emphasizing the necessity of moving towards a system that is transparent and focused on delivering adequate services.