Transcript Highlights:

• contract this idea of a Securities contract this idea of a Securities entitlement<01:33:20.320><
• What do securities firms do? They borrow money using securities.
• What do securities firms do? They borrow money using securities.
• Although banks do sometimes borrow with securities, a secured lender in the securities market has to
• security.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard testimony on House Bill 167, which would add ski, snowboard, and boat wax containing PFAS to the state’s consumer-product restrictions. The sponsor argued the product is already banned in many places, has PFAS-free alternatives, and is used in ways that can directly contaminate water rather than landfills. She cited high PFAS levels in several New Hampshire lakes and said the bill was a simple extension of prior PFAS legislation. A witness also described a personal experience where a liquid ski wax disappeared from the market and later returned, likely because of PFAS concerns. The chair then closed the hearing on HB 167 without a vote. The committee then opened a hearing on House Bill 312, dealing with college athletes’ name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. Representative Moffett said the bill was modeled on New Jersey law and intended to let student-athletes earn compensation from NIL without losing institutional scholarships, while also requiring licensed representation and setting limits on certain endorsements. He described the measure as proactive because NIL rules are evolving and could create conflicts among schools and future lawsuits. Members questioned whether the bill should apply to two-year institutions, whether it should exclude firearms and weapons, and whether the scholarship protections would cover need-based or academic aid as well as athletic scholarships. Moffett said the scholarship language was intended to protect scholarships generally, but not need-based aid specifically, and he acknowledged discomfort with some of the endorsement restrictions. Public testimony on HB 312 was mixed. One supporter, a former Division III athlete and coach, backed the bill but urged removal of a section allowing institutions or athletic bodies to use an athlete’s NIL without compensation, arguing most New Hampshire athletes do not receive NIL money and should not have to work extra jobs to cover basic expenses. The chair also raised concerns about the bill’s contractual and identity-rights implications, referencing prior committee work on a J.D. Salinger-related identity case and noting the committee had previously declined to get involved in similar contractual disputes. No vote was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• troopers or Capitol security officers. troopers or Capitol security officers.
• Screening is a everyone feels secure.
• Weapons screening is a common security Weapons screening is a common security tool<00:07:52.240> used
• <00:10:27.680> or process again you'll alert security or process again you'll alert security
• So this offers a few security layers.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson and State Patrol Colonel Christina Bogoich announced that weapon screening will begin Tuesday at the Minnesota State Capitol, at the start of the 2026 legislative session. They said the change is based on an independent security assessment and the Axtell report’s top recommendation, and is intended as an added layer of protection rather than a weapons ban or a change in state law. Both officials emphasized that the Capitol should remain open, accessible, and welcoming while reducing preventable risks, citing increased threats nationwide and the recent murders of Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and Mark Hortman and the shootings of Senator John Hoffman and Yvette Hoffman. Officials said visitors will enter through four public access points, with all other exterior doors closed to public entry. The primary entrance will be the south ground-level entrance, with additional access through tunnels connecting to the Senate building, State Office Building, Parking Lot C, and the Judicial Center. They said the screening process should take only seconds for most people, with bags scanned separately and additional checks only if needed. Prohibited items will not be stored by the Capitol, and the public was told to plan ahead, carry fewer items, and follow staff instructions. The Capitol will close to the general public at 4:30 p.m. on weekdays unless legislative business is still underway, in which case accommodations will be made. In questions, officials said people with valid permit-to-carry authorization may still bring a firearm if it is otherwise legal, but they must declare the permit, show government ID, and go through screening. Elected officials are exempt and will have a separate lane, while staff will be screened. They also said the tunnels will be locked with restricted key-card access, and that the Senate is implementing its own screening, with questions about Senate doors referred there. Jacobson said the State Patrol will cover the costs within its existing budget, and that the process will be evaluated and adjusted as needed to keep it efficient and not a deterrent to visitors.

Transcript Highlights:

• very comprehensive um security very comprehensive um security assessment<00:01:46.640> that
• just for those security reasons alone.
• there are some changes uh to security there are some changes uh to security that<00:05:01.120>
• And we those security reasons alone.
• <00:11:54.000> report full non-public um, uh, security report full non-public um, uh, security

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The interview focused on changes to security at the Minnesota Capitol complex in response to rising political violence and recent attacks on public officials, including the June 14 assassinations of Melissa and Mark Hartman and the attempted assassination of Senator Hoffman and his wife. The senator said those events, along with broader threats against elected officials, created urgency to strengthen protections for members, staff, and visitors. The discussion centered on the Axtell report, a Department of Public Safety security assessment of four priority buildings: the Capitol, Centennial Office Building, Judicial Center, and Minnesota Senate Building. The report included a public executive summary and a confidential detailed analysis. Its top recommendation was weapon screening, which the advisory committee adopted as the highest-impact measure to prevent weapons or other dangerous items from entering the buildings. The senator described visible changes such as screening at entrances, single-entry points, Evolv machines, and X-ray screening for bags, as well as a Senate rule barring guns in the gallery after concerns about member safety. She argued these measures do not significantly reduce access because most state capitols already screen visitors, and said restrictions on firearms in government buildings are consistent with constitutional limits in sensitive places. She also noted that permit holders may still enter with firearms for now, but said she plans to introduce a bill to ban guns on the Capitol complex entirely. Additional recommendations discussed included encrypted staff badges, more consistent access controls across buildings, and behavioral threat assessment training. The senator said some proposals will require legislative action and funding, citing an estimated $41 million request from the Department of Administration, while other measures could be implemented administratively from the non-public security report.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:07:53.039> The just to have security present. The just to have security present.
• And it simply security services.
• security monitoring things. And security monitoring things.
• And I was, for physical security.
• <01:19:05.120> So security excludes mutual funds. So security excludes mutual funds.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• federal money goes to Minnesota applicants. security grant program began in 17 after security grant
• c> grant security the nonprofit security grant security the nonprofit security grant program<00:47
• <00:49:48.799> is if their sense of security is if their sense of security is compromised<
• So we're looking at security equipment: security cameras, upgrading locks, scanning equipment for the
• So we're looking at security equipment: security cameras, upgrading locks, scanning equipment for the

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I am concerned about these national security issues.
• Her work has contributed to national security.
• security interests.
• I'll start with cyber security and making sure networks are deployed in a secure way.
• I want to also discuss the potential security concerns about 6G.

Keywords: state policy, governance, legislative processes, public concerns, policy improvement

Summary: During the committee meeting, various issues surrounding state policy and governance were deliberated. Although the specifics of bills under discussion were not highlighted, comments from several committee members indicated a focus on improving legislative processes and addressing public concerns. The chairman facilitated discussions that included several points of critique as well as suggestions for enhancement of existing laws. The atmosphere remained constructive despite the complexity of the topics at hand.

Transcript Highlights:

• securities.
• A secured lender, this is asset-based in the securities market.
• A secured lender, this is asset-based in the securities market.
• Although banks do sometimes borrow with securities, a secured lender, this is asset-based in the securities
• security.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard testimony on House Bill 167, a PFAS-related measure to add ski, snowboard, and boat wax to the state’s list of banned consumer products containing PFAS. The sponsor said the product is already banned in many other places, alternatives exist, and the concern is that these products go directly into water rather than landfills. She cited high PFAS levels in several New Hampshire lakes and argued the bill would help stop further contamination. A member of the public also described personal experience with ski wax products disappearing from the market, suggesting PFAS may have been the reason. The chair then closed the hearing on HB 167. The committee next opened a hearing on House Bill 312, dealing with college athletes’ name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. Representative Moffett explained the bill was prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s NCAA v. Alston decision and was modeled on New Jersey law. He said the bill would prevent colleges from restricting NIL compensation, require athletes to use licensed attorneys or registered sports agents, and limit certain endorsements involving addictive drugs, adult entertainment, firearms, and weapons. He framed the measure as a proactive response to a changing college sports landscape and noted possible future conflicts involving schools, agents, and endorsements. Committee members raised several concerns and suggested changes. One member questioned the bill’s exclusion of two-year institutions, another objected to the weapons restriction, and others asked how the bill would affect scholarships. The sponsor said the intent was to protect scholarships, especially athletic scholarships, and clarified that need-based scholarships were not meant to be affected. He also acknowledged discomfort with the endorsement restrictions and said the committee might want to broaden or revise the language. The hearing remained open for further consideration, with no vote taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• On Border Security, we will now come to order.
• Senate Committee on Border Security is now called to order. Mr. Clark, please call the roll.
• There would be new border security provisions.
• There would be new border security provisions.
• Security division within DPS will be our primary focus next week.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Border Security met to consider SCR 39, authored by Senator Creighton, which urges the federal government to take immediate action on border security and calls for Texas to be reimbursed for roughly $11 billion spent on border-related efforts. Creighton argued the federal government has failed to secure the border, leading to illegal crossings, fentanyl trafficking, and the need for Texas to step in through Operation Lone Star. A DPS chief financial officer was present as a resource witness, though no public testimony was taken. Several senators spoke in support of the resolution while also noting broader context. Senator Hinojosa of Nueces said border security has been neglected by multiple administrations, not just the Biden administration, but supported the measure and emphasized the need for lawful immigration and border enforcement. Senator Hinojosa of Hidalgo and Senator Flores also supported the resolution, highlighting cartel activity, trade impacts, and Texas’s role in maintaining border integrity. Senator Eckhardt questioned the author about what specific federal actions were meant by “immediate action,” and Creighton pointed to more staffing, better radio interoperability, stronger drug interdiction, and renewed federal responsibility for wall construction and enforcement. After questions and discussion, public testimony was closed. Senator Flores moved that SCR 39 be favorably recommended to the full Senate, and the committee approved the motion by a vote of 4 ayes and 1 nay. The chair then announced that SB 36, creating a border security division within DPS, would be the committee’s primary focus at the next meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• today, you have to go through security today, you have to go through security checks. checks. checks
• , the capital security, the capital security, and<00:10:26.200> it<00:10:26.320> says,<
• > personal<00:10:29.320> protective "and security and personal protective "and security
• to do a job that that risks the security to do a job that that risks the security of<00:19:08.880
• member's home than our capital security member's home than our capital security unit<00:47:47.760

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House File 3791 was laid over for possible inclusion later, with Rep. Green and Rep. Noor presenting it as a response to rising threats against Minnesota elected officials and public officers. They cited increased threat reports, the June 2025 killings of Speaker Emeritus Melissa Hortman and her husband, the shootings of Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, and other recent threats as evidence that current protective resources are insufficient. The bill would create a state officials protective services unit within the State Patrol, provide security and threat-assessment services for principal state officials, and require reporting on credible threats. Rep. Noor said the proposal would be triggered by leadership when there is a credible threat, would include legislators and constitutional officers, and would be funded at about $3.98 million in FY 2027 with an ongoing base of $3.25 million, with some ability to contract with local law enforcement for support in official-capacity situations. Members raised concerns about scope, jurisdiction, and cost. Rep. Olsen argued the bill was not narrow enough and worried it could allow Capitol Security to provide home or event security too broadly, rather than limiting the work to the Capitol and catastrophic incidents. Rep. Joy offered an A1 amendment to use existing funds instead of adding new spending, saying local sheriffs and police already handle many situations. That amendment failed on a voice vote. Rep. Olson then moved an A2 amendment focused on clarifying who should be in charge of protection at home and how local law enforcement would be involved; discussion centered on whether Capitol Security, State Patrol, or local agencies should lead response and how credible threats would be determined. Supporters of the bill, including Rep. Green and Rep. Muir, said the events of June 14 showed the need for a dedicated, coordinated protective service and that local responses were uneven across jurisdictions. Rep. Muir described delayed or inconsistent police responses after the attacks and said lawmakers need a more reliable system to keep members and their families safe. Rep. Keagle also testified about personal threats and harassment at home, including a prank pizza delivery that made her fear someone knew when she was home. The committee did not take final action on the bill beyond laying it over, and the A1 amendment failed; discussion on the A2 amendment and the bill’s details continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those sales are a critical part of U.S. security policy.
• Security threats that we face today.
• We must prioritize America's security.
• This not only threatens the U.S. and Israel's security, but global security at large.
• Security Council Resolutions.

Keywords: Senator Flinstone, HB22, SB4, amendments, public testimony, legislation, environmental impact, economic implications

Summary: The meeting featured a thorough examination of various bills, including substantial discussions on HB22 and SB4. Key points included amendments proposed by committee members, particularly from Senator Flinstone, who emphasized the need for clarifications on certain provisions. The committee actively engaged with several witnesses providing public testimony, some in favor of the proposed legislation while others highlighted concerns and potential implications. The discussions were vibrant, showcasing different perspectives, especially on the environmental and economic impacts of the bills in question. The meeting concluded with a consensus to reconvene after a recess to further address the outstanding issues related to the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh I'm particularly and security.
• <00:37:10.520> using security standpoint, we've been using security standpoint, we've been
• Security overall is moving to what's called a zero trust model. It's security without boundaries.
• Security overall is moving to what's called a zero trust model. It's security without boundaries.
• Um, you know, security in the especially IT security in the past has been about strong walls.

Keywords: Meeting Start - 00:00 Roll Call – 00:34 KY Chamber of Commerce KY Business Perspectives – 01:50 COT Update on SB4 – 27:16 Adjournment – 48:18, 958, all

Summary: The 2025 Artificial Intelligence Task Force met for its first meeting of the year and heard updates on federal AI policy, state implementation of Senate Bill 4, and the business community’s perspective on AI regulation. Co-chairs noted that federal legislation could affect the task force’s work later in the year, but said Kentucky still has significant issues to study, including energy, land use, education, social media, and children’s engagement with AI. The task force had quorum and no votes were taken. Kate Shanks of the Kentucky Chamber said the business community supports continued discussion but favors a federal approach over a patchwork of state laws. She described the Trump administration’s new AI executive order as emphasizing innovation over regulation, noted the pending federal AI action plan, and discussed congressional action including the Take It Down Act and industry-specific changes to existing laws. She warned that state-by-state AI rules could increase costs and burden businesses, and said the Chamber would prefer incremental, flexible policy that avoids conflict with existing law and limits private rights of action. Members asked about uniform model legislation, education uses of AI, and civil liability; Shanks said a model approach could help avoid fragmentation and that liability should generally be handled through consumer-protection-style enforcement rather than broad litigation. The Commonwealth Office of Technology then reported on implementation of SB 4, saying it has worked with industry, agencies, other states, and vendors to build an AI policy framework now in final review. Officials said an AI Governance Committee has been established and will meet in July, and a draft RFP is being prepared to meet the bill’s tracking and documentation requirements. They said no major implementation challenges have been identified so far, but the impact of pending federal rules remains uncertain. Members also discussed the need to educate students and teachers about AI, with one member emphasizing that schools should teach both how to use AI and how to think critically about information online.

Transcript Highlights:

• facility, medium security facility, or a minimal security facility.
• medium-security facilities.
• a medium-security prison.
• Fifty percent should be to higher security. Fifty percent should be to lower security.
• to medium security.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission on correctional consolidation and collaboration heard testimony focused on how Massachusetts uses custody levels, staffing, programming, and medical release tools, with Prisoners’ Legal Services arguing that the system is overusing expensive high-security settings and underusing step-down options. Dave Rainey said the incarcerated population has dropped substantially over the last several years, but spending and staffing have not fallen in proportion. He argued that DOC overclassifies people into medium and maximum security, relies too heavily on behavioral assessment units that function like segregation, and keeps people in restrictive settings such as Souza-Baranowski and Shattuck Hospital longer than necessary. He also said medical parole is underused and that many people with serious chronic illness or advanced age pose little public-safety risk and should be released through existing legal pathways. Sheriffs and other commission members pushed back on some of those points, emphasizing that staffing needs are driven by the acuity of the current population, that corrections is not overstaffed, and that classification decisions involve serious public-safety judgments. They also stressed that some high-cost medical placements are necessary because people remain under sentence and require care, and that furloughs and other release tools can create security risks if contraband or substance use is involved. The discussion also covered the role of county sheriffs versus DOC in reentry, with several members saying county systems tend to do more day-to-day step-down and release planning, while DOC has more difficulty moving people through lower-security settings before release. Ben Foreman of MassINC offered a more systemwide, data-focused perspective, praising the state’s transparency and arguing that Massachusetts has made major progress in reducing incarceration and increasing public safety. He said the state still has an opportunity to improve by right-sizing facilities, investing in community-based mental health treatment, and using the commission to better understand the capital and operating costs of the current system. In response to questions, he said he was aware of DOC studies on programs like furlough but had not reviewed recent ones, and he noted that total-control facilities like Souza-Baranowski have long been criticized in the research literature for poor outcomes. Nora Wassel of the Women and Incarceration Project then testified that the commission should issue an interim report and scrutinize the planned new women’s prison, which she said is not justified by current population trends or available data. She argued that women are overclassified under DOC’s own tools, that reentry beds and minimum-security placements are underused, and that the system may be failing to account for women’s distinct medical and reentry needs. The meeting ended with continued discussion of reentry, furloughs, day reporting, and whether consolidation should mean fewer facilities, better step-down pathways, or both.

Transcript Highlights:

• Auditor's Office cybersecurity update for fiscal year 2025, including opportunities to improve IT security
• at local governments, and opportunities to improve state information security.
• These are very important audits for improving the security of IT at state and local governments.
• The first one is comparing IT practices to the Center for Internet Security Critical Security Controls
• The Critical Security Controls are made up of 153 individual safeguards or actions that an organization

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee held a public hearing on the State Auditor’s Office cybersecurity performance audits for fiscal year 2025, covering both state agencies and local governments. SAO staff explained that the audits are conducted independently under Initiative 900 and are kept confidential at the entity level, with detailed findings shared directly with the audited organizations. They reported that state agency audits found nearly one-third of assessed safeguards fully implemented on all systems and 227 vulnerabilities across seven agencies, including three critical and 21 high-severity issues. For seven local government cybersecurity audits, nearly a quarter of safeguards were fully implemented on all systems, and auditors identified nearly 300 vulnerabilities, including nine critical and 47 high-severity issues. SAO also summarized its ransomware resiliency audits and critical infrastructure audits for local governments. In six ransomware audits, a little over 35% of assessed safeguards were not in place, while about 60% were at least partially in place. In 39 critical infrastructure audits, focused largely on water and sewer providers, auditors found over 260 vulnerabilities and said more than 10% were critical or high. Staff highlighted that these audits have led to improvements, including one vendor making security changes after SAO testing that were later echoed in a federal advisory. They also described related services such as cybersecurity checkups, policy guidance, and other cyber-related work by the office. Washington Technology Solutions’ state chief information security officer, Ralph Johnson, praised the audits and said they help protect essential public services. He cited a sharp national rise in ransomware incidents against governments and said Washington has used more than $11 million in federal and state cybersecurity grant funds for over 200 projects. In response to questions from Representative Scott, SAO and WOTEC discussed options for addressing urgent vulnerabilities, including compensating controls, grant funding, and low-cost mitigation steps. The committee also discussed how Washington’s program compares nationally, with Johnson saying Initiative 900 is unusually comprehensive and that local governments often seek audits voluntarily. No votes were taken, and the hearing adjourned after public testimony was offered but none was given.

Transcript Highlights:

• Defend Social Security.
• off phone uh service for Social Security off phone uh service for Social Security beneficiaries<
• they're going to tell Social Security they're going to tell Social Security beneficiaries<00:16:
• the notion that the social security the notion that the social security system<00:17:19.839>
• security helping middle class retirement security helping children<00:18:11.520> who've<00:18

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Wednesday, March 26, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The second involves home security.
• <00:08:35.039> grant resurrect our courthouse security grant resurrect our courthouse security
• Home security, online masking, and expanded judicial security unit would enhance the safety and security
• expanded judicial security unit would expanded judicial security unit would enhance<00:15:39.839>
• > of enhance the safety and security of enhance the safety and security of judges<00:15:41.839

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee took up House File 3874 and laid it over for possible inclusion in a finance bill. The Minnesota Judicial Branch, represented by State Court Administrator Jeff Shorba and Chief Judge Michael Fritz, presented a supplemental funding request focused on two main areas: judicial safety and security, and the employer share of Minnesota Paid Leave costs. Shorba said the branch was grateful for prior budget support but noted it did not receive salary increases for staff or judges and did not get funding for juror per diem. He explained that the branch is seeking funding for personal data protection, home security, two additional judicial security positions, security for the chief justice at public events, and a revived courthouse security grant program. Much of the testimony centered on rising threats against judges and court staff. Shorba and Fritz described increases in incidents, threats, and disturbances, and Fritz gave several examples of threatening behavior involving judges’ homes, personal information, and online doxxing. They argued that the branch needs better threat assessment, coordination with local law enforcement, and security measures at homes, courthouses, and online. Members expressed support for the concerns and asked questions about how threats are currently handled and whether state patrol officers assigned to security duties would need additional training. The second major topic was the judicial branch’s request for funding to cover its employer contribution to Minnesota Paid Leave, which took effect in January 2026. Shorba said the branch followed MMB’s calculations and expected the cost to be addressed through broader state government funding, but the branch did not receive an operational adjustment. He said the branch is now having to hold positions open to absorb the cost. Members questioned why the request was not included in the earlier budget process, and Shorba responded that the branch believed the issue would be handled centrally and later learned it had not been funded for the judiciary. No vote on the funding requests was taken in the discussion shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• spending is merely shown as a comparison and to illustrate how the carry forward in the premium security
• spending is merely shown as a comparison and to illustrate how the carry forward in the premium security
• <00:04:26.720> plan balance in the premium security plan balance in the premium security plan
• The board operates the premium security program.
• It extends the premium security program to encompass years 2023 to 2027.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee reviewed a side-by-side comparison and fiscal analysis of Senate File 3472, a reinsurance-related bill affecting the premium security plan account, MinnesotaCare, and related health care funding. Staff explained the Senate and House versions of the bill, including how the Senate proposal extends reinsurance for five years and uses a projected $1.087 billion general fund transfer to fully fund claims and administrative costs through fiscal year 2028, while the House version conditions continuation of the program on federal approval of the state innovation waiver. The fiscal presentation also covered appropriations for MNsure, a mental health parity and substance abuse office, and House provisions for delivery reform and a public option study, along with a House transfer of $110.674 million to the health care access fund. Members debated the budget horizon and whether costs should be forecast beyond fiscal year 2025. Representative Schultz argued that the spreadsheet understated the broader fiscal impact of reinsurance and warned about future funding cliffs for MinnesotaCare and other health programs, while other members and staff noted that the state’s standard forecast ends in fiscal year 2025 and that the fiscal note only estimated reinsurance costs through the five-year extension. Supporters said reinsurance was the best available option to reduce premium increases, especially in rural areas, and some pointed to a public option as a longer-term alternative. Opponents argued reinsurance does not address underlying health care costs or deductibles and urged consideration of other reforms. House Research then walked through the policy differences. House-only provisions would change Minnesota Comprehensive Health Association board membership, require platinum plans in certain markets, expand postnatal coverage, require a prescription drug benefit in some plans, set a minimum actuarial value for MinnesotaCare, create an Office of Mental Health Parity and Substance Abuse Accountability, and direct reports on delivery reform and a public option. The shared provisions would extend the premium security program to 2027 and delay the transfer of remaining premium security plan funds to the health care access fund until 2029, with the House language again contingent on federal waiver approval. No formal vote was taken in the excerpt; the chair closed discussion after hearing no further questions and indicated members would be contacted about next steps.

Transcript Highlights:

• voting process while improving security voting process while improving security and<00:52:46.160
• ensure that our equipment is secure ensure that our equipment is secure before<00:56:58.160> it
• Security starts with our people.
• secure development processes. secure development processes.
• Secure<01:22:30.719> configurations, Secure configurations, Secure configurations, minimal<01:

Keywords: Discussion of BR 25 (2026 RS) 04:15 Presentation on voting systems by ES&S 48:14 Presentation on voting systems by Hart InterCivic and Harp Enterprises 01:13:07, 958, all

Summary: The committee met, approved the October 21 minutes, and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal to prohibit the use of tax dollars and public resources to advocate for or against ballot questions, including constitutional amendments. Senator Rawlings and the other presenters argued the current law already bars such advocacy but lacks meaningful enforcement, citing the 2024 school choice amendment campaign and other examples where public officials and school systems allegedly used taxpayer-funded resources to influence voters. They said the bill would add civil and criminal penalties, while preserving First Amendment rights for public employees acting in their personal capacities. Much of the discussion focused on whether the bill should be limited to school districts or broadened to cover other public entities, and on how to define terms such as “advocating in impartial terms.” Members raised concerns about possible effects on county and city lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, on legitimate factual explanations by public officials, and on whether the bill could unintentionally restrict needed representation for local governments. The sponsors said the measure was intended to be narrow, would be vetted further, and would not bar individuals from speaking on their own behalf. Several members suggested revisions. Representative Lockett asked that schools and school employees be specifically named, and suggested separating the lobbying restrictions from the ballot-measure provisions into different bills. Representative Layman questioned the meaning of the bill’s language and whether it would cover factual testimony by officials. Representative Heen asked about a Jefferson County example involving legal fees used to challenge petition signatures; counsel said that situation would likely be allowable under the bill as drafted, though some members thought it should be covered. No final vote was taken on BR 25 during this discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Some security deposit assistance organizations expressed concerns that tenants who secure conditional
• Some security deposit assistance organizations expressed concerns that tenants who secure conditional
• security deposit. security deposit.
• security deposit to be required in RCD. security deposit to be required in RCD.
• If it is a security deposit, because we know what security deposits are for.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• holistic approach is to security holistic approach is to security and<01:15:26.719> then<
• And I think that's a very important point for me to make as it relates to security and what security
• <01:18:33.920> as<01:18:34.159> it security and what security means as it security
• <01:20:44.080> of<01:20:44.320> the security of the infrastructure of the security
• software security.

Keywords: Discussion of BR 25 (2026 RS) 04:15 Presentation on voting systems by ES&S 48:14 Presentation on voting systems by Hart InterCivic and Harp Enterprises 01:13:07, 958, all

Summary: The committee met to approve the October 21 minutes and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal relating to prohibited uses of tax dollars and public resources. The sponsors said the bill is intended to strengthen existing law by adding civil and criminal penalties for taxpayer-funded advocacy on ballot questions, especially in light of controversies during the 2024 election over school officials and districts using public resources to oppose a constitutional amendment. They also described related concerns about school districts hiring third-party lobbyists and public relations firms, particularly in Fayette County, and said the proposal was meant to keep tax dollars focused on public services rather than political persuasion. Committee members raised several concerns about scope and drafting. Some asked whether the bill should specifically mention schools, school boards, and school employees, and the sponsors said they would add that language. Others questioned whether the measure would also affect local government lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, and the sponsors said they intended to focus narrowly on schools while exempting certain advocacy organizations and internal government lobbyists. Members also asked whether public employees could still speak as private individuals, and the sponsors said yes. Several members suggested splitting the lobbying and ballot-advocacy issues into separate bills, and the sponsors said they would consider that. Members also pressed for clarification on how the bill would apply in practice, including whether it would cover legal challenges to petition drives or only advocacy after a question is on the ballot. Counsel for the sponsors said the bill would not cover some petition-related litigation as drafted, though they believed it should. The sponsors and supporters argued the proposal was needed to give the existing prohibition real enforcement, while some members warned that the language could unintentionally limit legitimate public representation or be too broad if not carefully drafted. No final vote was taken during the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• The committee director will read the title: An act to amend the Retirement and Social Security Law in
• The committee director will read the title: An act to amend the Retirement and Social Security Law in
• An act on under retirement and social security law in relation to providing certain debt.
• The nextelment of retirement, security law in relation to Vantage and County County. County.
• Moved by Senator Karen, second by Senate Security. All in favor say aye.

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Civil Service and Pensions met on March 10, 2026, with a quorum present and 11 bills on the agenda. The committee chair noted that all measures were recommended to be referred to the Finance Committee. The bills largely concerned retirement and pension-related changes for public employees, including increased military service credit, retirement rules for 911 operators and dispatchers, salary base determinations for NYC police pension members, retired firefighters serving as fire science instructors, borrowing from accumulated contributions for certain NYC correction members, a cost-of-living-related benefit for Verrazzano Bridge toll employees, restoration of 20-year service credit for certain NYC correction officers and sanitation workers, death benefits for Orange County correction personnel, pension benefits for fire marshals with service beyond 25 years, prior service treatment for NYC Police Pension Fund members, and death benefits for certain retirement system beneficiaries. Members moved each bill without substantive debate, and each received unanimous support in the recorded vote tally of seven ayes, zero nays, and zero AWRs. Several bills were sponsored by Senator Jackson, who also participated in the motions on those measures. Senator Cooney arrived during the meeting and joined the committee proceedings. No opposition or amendments were recorded. At the conclusion of the agenda, all 11 bills were reported to the Finance Committee, and the chair adjourned the meeting after noting the completion of the committee’s third meeting of the 26th legislative session.