Transcript Highlights:

• to need to that would like to be need to need to that would like to be addressed<00:23:00.039> as
• We need an amendment to this.
• State being special education aid, as well as state special education adequacy aid. I see.
• <04:37:14.080> special<04:37:14.359> education student needing special education student
• needing special education services<04:37:15.359> from<04:37:15.920> Goan<04:37:16.920>

Keywords: 928, house, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• needs children and non-special needs children to make sure that children are in the least restrictive
• needs children and non-special needs children to make sure that children are in the least restrictive
• needs children and non-special needs children to make sure that children are in the least restrictive
• needs children and non-special needs children to make sure that children are in the least restrictive
• kids have special needs, but fewer kids have special needs, but fewer kids without<01:32:01.520>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then members, we need a motion to, uh, yeah, we just need a motion due pass as amended, the bills
• So I'm not, again, perhaps we need to do some special language that would limit these raises to certain
• of the meeting regarding all special language, it needs to be to the BLR staff today.
• if it had special language.
• Special language subcommittee.

Summary: The committee first heard a Special Language Committee report from Senator McKee, who reported that the subcommittee adopted nine amendments related to Governor’s Letter 7 and 30, including amendments to HB 1005 and one sponsored by Senator Dismang. The committee then adopted the report and approved several items on the special language agenda, including HB 101 (Department of Corrections), HB 1017 (Department of Agriculture promotion boards), HB 1009 (Department of Public Safety), and SB 10 (Department of Commerce, Division of Workforce Services). During discussion of SB 10, members questioned a $10 million unemployment insurance modernization item, and Commerce/DFA explained it was a continuation of existing funding rather than a new increase. The meeting then turned to the Treasurer’s budget, where members raised concerns about prior and proposed salary increases in the office, especially the size of raises for senior staff compared with lower-paid employees. Committee members repeatedly asked whether the new appropriation would be directed to the investment team rather than top administrators, and whether special language could cap raises or otherwise limit how the money could be used. The Treasurer’s representative said the office was willing to discuss caps and that no final decisions on raises had been made, but several members remained dissatisfied and emphasized the need for the Treasurer himself to appear. Representative Lundstrum moved to hold the Treasurer’s budget, and the committee approved the hold. After that, the committee referred items with special language to the special language process and then batch-approved a series of supplemental and reappropriation bills, followed by individual due-pass actions on multiple bills, including HB 1006, HB 1013, HB 1016, HB 1033, HB 1048, HB 1050, HB 1053, HB 1065, HB 1078, and several Senate bills such as SB 2, SB 14, SB 19, SB 26, SB 32, SB 42, SB 52, SB 53, and SB 74. Near the end, members discussed filing deadlines and the need to suspend rules for late special-language items, and Senator Irvin released a hold on HB 1064 before the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• lake so you might need to get this<00:07:43.360> specialized<00:07:44.039> person<00:07
• <00:20:54.480> purpose what street legal special purpose what street legal special purpose
• person owning a street legal special person owning a street legal special purpose<00:21:17.559><
• wants to have a street legal special wants to have a street legal special purpose<00:21:43.760><
• They don't have to, but if they're going to, they need to be inspected. They need to be lawful.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Kentucky Senate Transportation Committee met with a quorum, approved the February 19 minutes, and opened with a moment of silent prayer for a colleague who had experienced a medical episode. Members also recognized several guests, including students, school board members, and community visitors. The committee then took up Senate Joint Resolution 66, which proposes a task force on Advanced Air Mobility. The sponsor described the measure as a way for Kentucky to study emerging eVTOL and related aviation technology, compare policies with other states, and position the commonwealth to compete for economic development in aviation, aerospace, and logistics. Members expressed support for the forward-looking concept, and the resolution was reported favorably after a roll call vote, with a correction noted that there was no committee substitute attached. The committee next considered Senate Bill 38, dealing with school bus stop-arm safety cameras. The sponsor and a co-sponsor said the bill is permissive, not mandatory, and would help school districts pay for camera purchase, installation, and operation if they choose to use them. They emphasized the goal of reducing illegal passing of stopped school buses, cited survey data showing thousands of violations statewide, and said the bill includes a process for contesting citations and keeps revenue largely within school districts and the court system. A co-sponsor described a personal near-miss involving a child crossing in front of a bus. After discussion, the committee adopted the committee substitute and reported the bill favorably. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 63 on street-legal special purpose vehicles. The sponsor and a witness from Back Roads of Appalachia said the bill is intended to support recreation and economic development in Eastern Kentucky by allowing certain UTVs and similar vehicles to be made street legal under defined safety and registration requirements. They stressed that farm and agricultural vehicles are excluded, that the bill is optional, and that vehicles would need inspection, registration, and safety equipment such as roll bars, seat belts, and windshields. Members asked about whether the bill would affect farm use, whether it was aimed at recreation, and how local governments could restrict use; the sponsor said localities could prohibit these vehicles on certain roads and that the measure was not meant to allow long-distance travel on major roads. The discussion also included a reminder to wear helmets. The transcript ends during the committee’s consideration of SB 63, before a final vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• We need some resolution. We need the information. We need the data.
• We need the information.<00:08:36.959> We<00:08:37.200> need<00:08:37.440> need<
• We need need the data. If information. We need need the data.
• What we need to do is expand this so that we collect the same data for all special education students
• So we need you need the business office?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to begin work on HB 742, which would require catastrophic special education aid to be drawn from the education trust fund, and more broadly to study special education aid/differentiated aid and related costing issues. The chair said the group was starting early because the issue has been debated for years without resolution, local districts are being forced to absorb prorated costs, and the committee wants to send the Department of Education and HHS Medicaid a clear request for data and recommendations before retained bills return in the fall. A committee clerk was also selected, with Representative Reverend volunteering to take notes for the meeting. Members reviewed background materials on special education enrollment, high-cost students, and possible funding formulas, including data on students in high-cost brackets and prior ideas such as category-based funding and caseload-based approaches. The chair also referenced research on other states, including Arkansas, which uses a different special education funding structure and audits IEPs. The committee emphasized that it was focused on the funding mechanics and costs, not on questioning whether services should be provided. Henry Lipman of HHS explained how Medicaid-to-schools currently works in New Hampshire. He said 172 school districts participate, but utilization dropped during the pandemic and remains below historical levels, in part because districts need the capacity to bill Medicaid. Under the current system, schools receive reimbursement based on half of the Medicaid fee schedule, with the school district effectively providing the state share. He said the federal government is requiring a shift by July 1, 2026, to a true certified public expenditure model based on actual costs, which should allow schools to recover 50% of their true costs and some administrative overhead. The department has received a roughly $2.5 million grant to hire a vendor and support districts through the transition, and an RFP and stakeholder meetings are underway. Committee members asked about how costs would be determined, whether the new system would use actual district-specific costs rather than averages, and how the department would support districts that do not currently participate. Lipman said the cost model would be based on each district’s own reasonable costs, subject to audit standards, and that the department expects to provide templates and technical assistance through the vendor because its staff is limited. He also said about one in four New Hampshire children are enrolled in Medicaid, that child enrollment has been relatively stable, and that continuous coverage rules should reduce churn. No votes or formal actions on HB 742 were taken during the meeting beyond organizing the subcommittee and beginning testimony and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• reason for this special session.
• Then the other question is, why do we need this, you know, from a special session standpoint?
• storm and we need to fund...
• They need to be used daily.
• And I think we need more measurements. We need more protocol. I'm not sure we need a bill, though.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee opened with roll call and a review of special-session procedure: bills would be heard in filing order, with related school-lunch bills grouped together, and any bill advancing would require a motion, second, and majority vote to be introduced. Members also discussed that the committee was functioning much like a delayed-bills committee, with final referral to either Appropriations or Policy depending on the bill’s fiscal impact. The first major proposal was Senator Schibley’s bill to create a narrow, statewide Bank of North Dakota bridge-loan program for struggling nonprofit medical facilities, prompted by Jacobson Memorial Hospital’s financial crisis. He argued the hospital and surrounding EMS services could close without short-term help, while committee members questioned the added language, the population cap, the $10 million fund with $5 million per applicant limit, and whether the program could open the door to future requests. Representative Headland then presented two cleanup bills from the prior property-tax session: one to fix notice and tax-certification issues for local taxing districts, and another to correct how the primary residence credit is applied so taxpayers receive the full benefit rather than counties retaining part of the reimbursement. Members asked about township hearing timing, the estimated $10–15 million annual impact, and whether the credit issue could be fixed retroactively; Headland said the bill was intended to correct the problem going forward. Three school-lunch bills drew extensive discussion. Representative Vetter proposed a small administrative appropriation to add an FTE to help eligible families enroll in the existing free/reduced lunch program, saying the goal was to ensure needy children are signed up and that the state should not subsidize meals for wealthy families. Representative Nathe offered a broader bill mirroring the pending initiated measure but placing the program in statute instead of the Constitution, moving implementation up a year, and funding it with a one-time $65 million from the strategic investment fund; he said this would preserve legislative flexibility and avoid constitutional entrenchment. Representative Dressler proposed raising the state-funded eligibility threshold from 225% to 300% of poverty, arguing it would expand access while still preserving federal reimbursements and encouraging better enrollment systems. Members debated costs, future budget pressure, whether the bills set a precedent for responding to ballot measures, and whether the program should include breakfast and other operational details. Other proposals included Senator Powers’ bill to create a hyperbaric oxygen board and support rural access to hyperbaric chambers for wounds, concussions, PTSD, and other conditions; Representative Tolman’s reporting-requirements bill to force new or expanded programs to justify purpose, alternatives, evaluation methods, and full implementation costs; Representative Frelich’s bill addressing the ongoing redistricting litigation and what happens if the Supreme Court or lower courts alter the current map; and a bill requested by the Public Service Commission and ITD for FERC litigation support and ADA website/document compliance. The committee also heard a rural-health eligibility bill from Representative Twait aimed at steering federal rural health dollars toward rural providers, with questions focused on whether the mileage limits would exclude some communities. One Holocaust education item was deferred until the sponsor could be located.

Transcript Highlights:

• that the agricultural State special that the agricultural State special supports<00:32:19.000>
• What else is in the state special?
• We'll note how the state special funds are used and if additional university resources are needed to
• Today, we'll focus on a subset of the state specials, including the state special for the College of
• to supplement the resources are needed to supplement the state<00:51:46.960> special<00:51:47.240

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think we need to look at special ed rules and see what rules are in place that go beyond what's
• can determine as a team what, if any, special education needs they have and, if so, what eligibility
• can determine as a team what, if any, special education needs they have and, if so, what eligibility
• can determine as a team what, if any, special education needs they have and, if so, what eligibility
• <06:40:04.840> education<06:40:05.240> needs team what if any special education needs

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first noted that House Bill 398, concerning Holocaust and genocide studies, and House Bill 131 had already been handled previously and were off the schedule. It then took up House Bill 740, which would require the Department of Education to maintain permanent records for closed charter schools. After brief discussion about overlap with another charter-school bill that already addressed closure and records, Representative Freeman moved to table the bill. The committee voted 16-0 to table/ITL the bill, and it was placed on the consent calendar. The main discussion centered on House Bill 557, which would require additional information on school budget ballots, including average cost per pupil, enrollment history, and teacher-to-administrator ratios. Members raised concerns that the bill was duplicative of existing law, overly detailed, costly to towns, and potentially electioneering or cumbersome on ballots. Supporters argued it would improve transparency and help voters who do not attend deliberative sessions or use online resources. The committee did not vote on the bill during the discussion; instead, members moved into caucus and later indicated they would hold the bill until Monday for further review. Later, the committee turned to House Bill 699 on special education definitions and considered Amendment 0606H. The sponsor explained the amendment was developed with the Department of Education after hearing testimony and was intended to align state definitions with federal law and incorporate recommendations from a prior audit, including changing “functionally blind pupils” to “students with visual impairments.” Some members supported the changes as responsive to the hearing and audit, while others objected that the amendment was still confusing, had not fully addressed stakeholder concerns, and should wait for a more comprehensive special education audit. The discussion also referenced House Bill 754 and another amendment, but the transcript ends before final action on HB 699 is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so these particular victims have become a special concern of the AARP.
• And so these particular victims have become a special concern of the AARP.
• And so these particular victims have become a special concern of the AARP.
• And so these particular victims have become a special concern of the AARP.
• <00:08:10.199> Revenue individual put them in a special Revenue individual put them in a special

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• health care needs.
• <00:50:17.839> of veter school as in bad need of veter school as in bad need of additional
• actual buildings themselves that need actual buildings themselves that need repair<00:50:38.440>
• the Riders and um the special the Riders and um the special appropriation<00:59:22.599> so
• > um special appropriation special writers um special appropriation special writers um which<01

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• we sometimes get um a um a bill special we sometimes get um a um a bill special legislation<00:41
• <00:45:19.920> a come and talk to us put in a special a come and talk to us put in a special
• <00:49:51.559> that is that most developments need that is that most developments need that
• , that need that longer term.
• c><00:59:16.240> special<00:59:16.960> legislation legislature with special legislation

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• you special education expenditures you special education expenditures you submit<00:19:06.480>
• for us to do um so the Bureau of special for us to do um so the Bureau of special education<00:20
• definitely the Bureau of special definitely the Bureau of special education<00:27:50.960> and
• the open the the so we need the we need the open the the warrant<00:42:37.640> language<00:42
• And if we left the extraordinary needs grant as it is, and we also had the increase for special education

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Funding Committee met to review a large package of bills, with the first four—HB 717, 742, 773, and 603—focused on special education aid, formerly called catastrophic aid. Chair Ladin explained that the committee needed to move a special education bill forward by March 4 and was trying to determine which bill would serve as the vehicle. He described the current formula and the difficulty of estimating the fiscal impact of lowering the threshold from 3.5 times the statewide average cost per pupil to a lower level, noting that DOE did not have reliable data on how many students would fall into the lower-cost bands. The committee also noted that several other bills in the package addressed SWEP and adequacy issues, and that HB 510 dealt with due process rather than funding. Mark Mello of the Bureau of School Finance testified that the department only has reliable data for special education expenditures above $70,000 per student, since claims are submitted for reimbursement at that point. He said the bureau was trying to estimate how many students might fall between 2.5x and 3.5x or 3x and 3.5x the average cost, but that the basic answer was they did not know and that any estimate would be difficult. He explained that moving the threshold from 3.5x to 2.5x would create a minimum additional cost of about $13.6 million based on existing claims, not counting new students who would enter the range. Members discussed whether districts already had the underlying data, whether a survey should be required, and how districts know when to begin tracking costs for reimbursement. The committee also discussed proration and the state’s share of special education aid. Mello explained that the current 80% state share is modeled in the formula, but the actual payment has been prorated because appropriations have not matched the statutory liability; he said the state liability was about $50 million, while the budget had provided $34 million, resulting in a 68% payment rate. HB 742 was described as a bill that would eliminate proration by paying the liability directly from the education trust fund with an overflow mechanism. Members also discussed possible alternatives such as changing the state share, using a lower threshold in a transition period, or requiring districts to submit data. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided; the committee was still in discussion and considering which bills to advance.

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to get this budget done.
• They needed a little where they are.
• <00:07:40.639> to time. there was a member who needed to time. there was a member who needed
• <00:15:16.560> So<00:15:16.720> I the special special session.
• So I the special special session.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• My husband and I are the parents of a special-needs son.
• Some special education students have needs that are more profound than a school district has the capacity
• Chairman, members, this bill ensures that we don't turn a blind eye to the specialized medical needs
• of a student as we endeavor to meet their specialized educational needs.
• specialized programs.

Summary: The Committee on Education K-16 heard several bills focused largely on special education transparency, school safety, and student support services. Senate Bill 1908, by Senator Zaffirini, would direct the Higher Education Coordinating Board to study the feasibility of a statewide system for coordinating clinical training placements, including regional portals for healthcare clinical slots, with a report due by December 1, 2026. A representative of the Texas Nurses Association and the Nursing Legislative Agenda Coalition testified in support. The bill was left pending subject to the call of the chair. The committee then took up Senate Bill 111, by Senator Hall, which in its committee substitute was narrowed to a reporting bill requiring school districts to disclose legal proceedings involving special education due process complaints when legal fees exceed $10,000, rather than capping spending. Several parents and advocates testified that districts spend large sums on litigation against families of children with disabilities and that greater transparency is needed; some senators raised concerns about unintended consequences, including possible pressure to settle cases. The committee adopted the substitute and left the bill pending. The committee also heard Senate Bill 1551 on automated external defibrillators in public schools, Senate Bill 865 on CPR instruction requirements for certain volunteers, Senate Bill 1032 on the Governor’s University Research Initiative, and Senate Bill 571 on school employee misconduct reporting and access to the Do Not Hire Registry; each was reported favorably after committee substitute adoption and roll-call votes. Additional bills discussed included Senate Bill 1884, which would formalize and expand dedicated staff support for the State Board of Education and give the board chair hiring authority over that staff; members questioned whether it duplicated TEA functions, while a witness argued the workload increase justified the change, and the bill was left pending. Senate Bill 625 would replace the current half-credit economics requirement with a half-credit in personal financial literacy; educators and advocates strongly supported making the course required, and the bill was left pending. Senate Bill 582 would make TEA settlement agreements in special investigations publicly available when sanctions are imposed, and Senate Bill 2600 would bar transportation fees for students living within two miles of campus unless districts do not receive state transportation funding; both were left pending. The committee also heard Senate Bill 2751, which would require TEA inspections of non-public special education programs to consider medical standards of care and crisis-prevention training; testimony from a program operator described severe student behaviors and the need for more flexibility, and the bill was left pending after the substitute was adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• established criteria for when a special established criteria for when a special fund<00:39:18.720
• <00:39:29.599> fund Those criteria are that a special fund Those criteria are that a special
• Needed to be done and presented to this legislature to confirm the essential need and viability of this
• valuable experience in critical need valuable experience in critical need areas<01:32:51.920>
• require us to return to a special require us to return to a special session<01:39:28.400> at<

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, some have argued we don't need to be here in special session.
• they need more work.
• I would like to say that this is This special session just isn't that special, Mr. President.
• I suggest that our special session address juvenile justice reform, because we need to hold accountability
• That's worth a special session.

Transcript Highlights:

• That categorical aid increase would also have an effect on the Choice, Charter, Special Needs Scholarship
• I'm going to tell you right now, I think that we need to put more money into special education because
• of the children in that particular school district, what those special needs would be.
• But I think you're referring to the actual cost provision under the special needs scholarship program
• The actual cost provision under the special needs scholarship program. That's right.

Keywords: 970, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There's special ed teachers and the expense of writing the IEP, so I think there needs to be some things
• I think that's the important point: this formula does not displace the high-cost special needs placement
• So this addresses general education and not the special needs—that's your point, right?
• needs placement funding cost special needs placement funding that's<03:44:14.479> separately<
• <03:44:25.319> needs education and not the special needs education and not the special needs

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a work session focused on school funding formulas, adequacy aid, and special education aid, with the chair outlining a schedule for the next several Tuesdays and noting that the committee would likely need multiple executive sessions to narrow down the bills. Members discussed the FY 26 formula, including base cost, differentiated aid, extraordinary needs grants, hold harmless provisions, and the roughly $28 million in excess statewide education property tax (SWP) funds that are not currently returned to the state under the existing formula. The first bill discussed was HB 137, which would allow excess SWP funds to remain with the local municipality for school and municipal purposes. Representative Spilsbury argued the issue is fundamental and suggested the state should require excess funds to be remitted back to the state, while Representative Damon said the bill appears to codify current practice and may be unnecessary, especially given possible court action. The discussion then shifted to a related bill from Representative Fellas that would redefine SWP as local money rather than state money and keep the current adequacy aid numbers revenue-neutral for now. Representative Fellas explained that SWP was created in 1999 after the Claremont lawsuit as part of the state’s effort to show increased school aid, but that it effectively labeled part of the local property tax as state money without changing property tax bills. She argued the state should not be tapping local property tax revenue and said her bill would preserve the current distribution while removing the SWP tax label, with future work possible on a different measure of local capacity such as income, home values, or poverty rate. Members also referenced prior discussions of fiscal capacity aid, relief aid, and other formula changes as part of the broader effort to restructure school funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• That members that the chairman myself could request a special committee meeting, but that I would need
• On any special committee? You're referring to what page? Well, let's see, special committees.
• Special committees on page 37. Yes.
• So that would need that modification. For every special committee meeting that you would have.
• as needed.

Summary: The Louisiana Public Defender Oversight Board met on June 18, 2026, established a quorum, and adopted the agenda. Public comment took up most of the meeting, with numerous district defenders and chief defenders speaking in support of State Public Defender Remy Starns. Speakers from several districts said the system is more unified, communication with the state office has improved, and local offices feel better supported than in the past. Several also credited Starns with visiting districts, helping with local issues, and improving coordination on capital and non-capital work. One speaker, Richard Thompson, emphasized Starns’ background and training under Sam Dalton, and another noted that a recent staffing decision in St. John the Baptist Parish ultimately proved beneficial for mentorship and resource sharing. Starns then gave his state public defender report. He said the system has improved over the last seven years and argued that public defense still needs a stable, renewable funding source comparable to other parts of the criminal justice system. He discussed legislative changes affecting public defense, including a cleanup bill, a law eliminating filing fees for writs and appeals, and a new procedure related to expert-fee claims after a recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision. He also described ongoing efforts to integrate capital and post-conviction work into district offices, expand the laws/writs program, and use local and state resources more efficiently. He thanked the board, the Public Defenders Association, and the late Mike Ginnart, whom he praised for his leadership and service. The board then considered and adopted proposed bylaws. Members discussed the need for a vice chair and a secretary, the role of special committees, and whether committee meetings should be public and limited to less than a quorum. The bylaws were adopted with the understanding that a committee would review and refine them later; volunteers were named for that committee. The board then elected a vice chair and designated the Office of the Public Defender, with staff assistance, as secretary for recordkeeping. Finally, the board heard a presentation on the strategic plan, which was described as largely unchanged from FY25 except for updates to reflect current law, accessibility requirements, training, compliance, and communication goals. The strategic plan was adopted by resolution, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is special to my heart. I have a special place in my heart for our special needs community.
• In my community, just two Sundays ago, we celebrated our special needs students, 16 years in a row.
• needs and special opportunities.
• As a teacher, we didn't call them special needs; we called them kids with superpowers.
• Because I know that a lot of the special needs enhance other areas in our development.

Summary: The Assembly met after a quorum call and brief procedural business, including approval of the prior day’s journal, suspension of certain rules for guest introductions, and moving AB 568 to the inactive file. The chamber then recognized several visiting groups, including a fourth-grade class from Marigold Elementary School, representatives of the Pasadena Tournament of Roses and its Royal Court, and students from the University of California Students Association on lobby day. The main floor actions centered on two resolutions. ACR 147 by Assembly Member Lackey designated March 9, 2026 as California Special Olympics Day. Members from both parties spoke in strong support, sharing personal connections to Special Olympics and praising its impact on athletes, families, and volunteers. The resolution received 70 co-authors and was adopted by voice vote. H.R. 89 by Assembly Member Patterson declared March as Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. Speakers emphasized rising colorectal cancer rates among younger adults, the importance of screening, and new testing options including blood tests. The resolution also received 70 co-authors and was adopted by voice vote. After the resolutions, Assembly Member Rodriguez offered an adjournment in memory of Bob Yuloa of Chino, a Navy veteran and longtime community servant. The Assembly then announced upcoming committee and floor session dates and adjourned until Thursday, March 12 at 9 a.m.