Transcript Highlights:

• Collaboration... Ten seconds.
• Collaboration was attempted on our part.
• collaboration among the districts and the CTE specifically.
• That said, it's a collaborative process.
• This proposal restricts collective bargaining and weekends collaborative or collaboration between districts

Committee: House Education

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• She has done a wonderful job working with students and collaborating with other mentors, including attending
• She has done a wonderful job working with students and collaborating with other mentors, including attending
• <01:11:13.520><c> with</c><01:11:13.760><c> our</c><01:11:14.120><c> administration</c> collaboratively
• with our administration collaboratively with our administration and<01:11:15.360><c> with</c><01:11:
• among other attorneys, um, collaboration among other attorneys, brainstorming,<01:12:55.199><c> things

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on Governor’s Message 767, the nomination of Kanoi AD Jackson to serve as circuit court judge for the Third Circuit. The chair announced that the committee would not vote on the governor’s message or two judge nominations until Tuesday, April 15, but planned to vote that day on two Defender Council items. Testimony on Jackson’s nomination was limited to two minutes per speaker, and the hearing was conducted partly by Zoom. Supporters emphasized Jackson’s qualifications, work ethic, judicial temperament, and community ties. Testifiers included the West Hawaii Bar Association, family members, a retired teacher, retired Judge Robert Kim, and the Hawaii State Bar Association. The West Hawaii Bar Association said Jackson received high marks from its review process and that the Third Circuit needed a permanent judge for stability. Judge Kim and others praised her preparation, intelligence, humility, and experience as a prosecutor and litigator. Jackson also spoke in her own behalf, acknowledging that her background is primarily criminal rather than civil, but saying she is committed to learning the civil docket and serving the community if confirmed. Members questioned the Hawaii State Bar Association about the basis for its support, including how many members responded and whether concerns were raised about Jackson’s lack of civil experience. HSBA said it uses a confidential review process, receives both positive and negative comments, and does not track votes or percentages, but its board voted to support her. Judge Kim responded that judges can learn new areas of law, that civil dockets can be managed with benchbooks and help from other judges, and that Jackson’s trial experience would serve her well. No vote was taken on Jackson’s nomination during this hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill requires collaboration between facilities and youth sports organizations to ensure AED access
• In that same spirit of collaboration, I would like to thank this committee for its commitment today.
• This bill seeks to improve access to AEDs, strengthen preparedness, and encourage collaboration among
• I want to thank the author's office for working collaboratively with us over the past 12 months on this
• facilities, with the county, and multi-jurisdictional collaboration.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Health heard a series of bills focused on access to care, insurance coverage, and public health. AB 387 on youth sports AED access drew support from the author and safety advocates, but opposition from school, park, city, and county groups over liability, cost, and access concerns. The author said he would continue working on amendments to shift the bill toward requiring access to existing AEDs rather than mandating facility procurement. Committee members emphasized the life-saving purpose of the bill while also raising affordability and access concerns for youth sports programs. The committee also heard AB 1682, which would require health plans and insurers to cover FDA-cleared scalp cooling devices for chemotherapy patients. Supporters, including breast cancer survivors and health groups, described the emotional and quality-of-life benefits of preventing hair loss and said cost is the main barrier to access. There was no formal opposition, though one senator raised concerns about whether the mandate could exceed essential health benefits. The chair and members expressed support for the bill’s goals and said it would be taken up when quorum was established. AB 2093, a follow-up to the 988 crisis line law, sought to clarify statewide leadership, improve coordination among 988, 911, and mobile crisis teams, and create a more sustainable funding structure. Behavioral health organizations and crisis center representatives supported the bill, saying implementation challenges and demand growth require statutory fixes. Committee members generally supported the concept but noted the bill was a gut-and-amend and that additional work was needed with county and behavioral health stakeholders. The committee then heard AB 1843 on hepatitis C treatment, AB 1629 on dental assignment of benefits, AB 2540 on community college access to medication abortion services, and AB 1929 on disclosure of health plan investments. AB 1843 had broad support from medical and public health groups but opposition from health plans, which argued it conflicted with the prior-authorization framework in SB 306 and could raise drug costs. AB 1629 was supported by dental and patient advocates but opposed by dental plans and insurers over concerns about network participation and out-of-pocket costs. AB 2540 drew strong support from reproductive health advocates and student representatives, while community college health services and some others opposed or were neutral pending amendments; the author said the bill was about equity and accepted amendments to reduce burdens. AB 1929 was backed by labor and immigrant rights groups as a transparency measure, but opposed by health plans and insurers who said Covered California was not the right entity to administer the disclosures and that the information was already publicly available. Throughout the hearing, members repeatedly weighed public access and transparency against cost, administrative burden, and implementation concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• This includes active participation in Reimagining Aging 2030, collaboration with municipal disability
• This includes active participation in reimagined aging, 2030, collaboration with municipal disability
• And they will share ideas and resources and collaboration.
• With regard to cross-collaboration, caring for veterans takes all of us, as you well know.
• For justice-involved veterans, the OVA has initiated a collaborative effort between the U.S.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Ways and Means

Keywords: 1212, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I stand for questions. ...can raise a lot of collaborative energy.
• The collaborative agreement goes on to three and four, where that's where the agreement talks about how
• The collaborative agreement goes on to three and four, where that's where the agreement talks about how
• The collaborative agreement goes on to three and four, where that's where the agreement talks about how
• The collaborative agreement goes on to three and four, where that's where the agreement talks about how

Bills: SF0122 , SJ0006 , SF0121 , SF0106

Committee: House Labor, Health & Social Services

Keywords: medical necessity, insurance, healthcare policy, independent review, claim processing, shared parenting, family law, joint custody, child well-being, parental rights, pharmacy, collaborative care, healthcare, prescriptions, patient safety, Wyoming Pharmacy Act, welfare, Medicaid, employment, eligibility verification

Transcript Highlights:

• I bless them to engage in transparent processes and to foster a culture of collaboration and compromise
• I bless them to engage in transparent processes and to foster a culture of collaboration and compromise
• Amen. culture of collaboration and compromise. culture of collaboration and compromise.
• </c> collaborative process. Thank you, Mr. collaborative process. Thank you, Mr. President.
• <00:43:16.880><c> transparent</c><00:43:17.440><c> public</c> collaborative transparent public collaborative

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think so far our federal partners have been quite pleased with our level of collaboration.
• I think there's a lot of collaboration between our two departments.
• You see great collaborations between the Councils on Aging and the Aging Service Access Point.
• You see collaborations between... ...on Aging and the Aging Service Access Point.
• You see collaborations between law enforcement and protective service workers.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Ways and Means

Keywords: 1212, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So this is getting them to collaborate together in that process.
• And they will just work in collaboration. >> Correct. >> Okay.
• Thank you for being with us. collaborate together in that process.
• So collaborate together in that process.
• </c> work in collaboration. work in collaboration. &gt;&gt; Correct. &gt;&gt; Correct.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I did try to reach you actually last year, but we'd love to be able to collaborate with you and others
• Moreover, FIRST programs, though highly competitive, also emphasize collaboration over competition.
• FIRST programs, though highly competitive, also emphasize collaboration over competition, encouraging
• I've gained confidence, strengthened my ability to collaborate, and honed my problem-solving skills.
• In these roles, I was able to design game strategy, work with other teams in gameplay, and collaborate

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Education

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a very full public hearing on the first Education Committee hearing of the session, with testimony taken on a large slate of bills, especially H. 650/S. 436 and related measures. The chairs explained the hearing rules, including two-minute testimony limits, live streaming, written testimony, and accommodations for interpreters and disabilities. The committee first heard extensive testimony on H. 460/S. 436 and later H. 650/S. 436, bills to affirm and maintain equal access to public education for all children, including immigrant students, English learners, and students with disabilities. Witnesses included parents, advocates, educators, attorneys, and state officials, many of whom described fears caused by federal policy changes and argued that Massachusetts should codify protections for school enrollment, special education, interpreter services, and due process in discipline cases. The Attorney General’s office, Mass Advocates for Children, Lawyers for Civil Rights, MIRA, the Children’s Law Center, the Disability Law/advocacy community, and others all urged favorable action, while committee members asked questions about Plyler v. Doe, manifestation determinations, interpreter qualifications, and how the bill would mirror or preserve existing federal protections at the state level. The committee also heard testimony on H. 702/S. 460, establishing an elementary and secondary school robotics grant program, which was supported as a way to expand STEM opportunities and help schools fund robotics programs. Representative Sweeney also testified on H. 713, a bill to support student participation in 4-H programming by allowing excused absences similar to those for athletics and other sanctioned activities; members noted bipartisan support and the bill’s long history. The hearing then moved to H. 543/S. 417, a recess bill requiring at least 30 minutes of free-play recess for K-8 students. Supporters included the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the League of Women Voters, educators, and parents, who emphasized recess as important for physical health, social-emotional development, attention, and academic performance, and noted that unequal local policies create disparities across districts. Several witnesses also tied recess to broader concerns about student well-being and screen time. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee simply received testimony and closed testimony on the bills as it moved through the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• Of the Special Commission on Correctional Consolidation and Collaboration.
• It's more about a collaboration between the House of Corrections, DOC, and so forth.
• So there wasn't even a collaboration with information.
• I would first recommend that there's a collaboration with information.
• There's a lot of monies. and see where the collaboration continues.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Correctional Consolidation and Collaboration met at 10:07 a.m. and approved the minutes from its February 9 meeting. The commission said it would accept Department of Correction testimony in writing because of a scheduling issue, and then spent most of the hearing hearing from people with lived experience in county and state correctional settings. Members repeatedly reminded witnesses to keep remarks to about three minutes and focused the discussion on correctional consolidation, collaboration, programming, and reentry. Testimony from multiple sheriff’s offices was broadly supportive of county-based programming, treatment, education, and reentry services. Witnesses from Hampshire, Barnstable, Hampden, and Franklin counties described access to GED and college courses, vocational training, recovery meetings, therapeutic groups, housing and ID assistance, work release, and reentry centers. Several said these programs helped them gain sobriety, employment, family reunification, and parole readiness. Hampden County witnesses emphasized immediate reentry planning and individualized case management; Franklin County witnesses praised respectful treatment and an accessible off-site reentry center; Barnstable witnesses highlighted the women’s therapeutic treatment program, creative writing, and the Bridge Center; Hampshire witnesses described the Bridge House, work release, and transition supports. Several witnesses contrasted those experiences with what they described as limited or delayed programming in DOC facilities, especially for people serving longer sentences or with restrictive classifications. One witness said DOC programming was hard to access because shorter sentences and offense labels affected eligibility; another described overcrowding, little counseling, and no reentry planning in state prison. A juvenile lifer testified that classification barriers and lack of tailored programming left him feeling unprepared, and another witness said DOC’s handling of classification hearings and records was unfair and opaque. Some speakers also raised concerns about mental health care and visitation policies, especially at Framingham, where one witness said suicidal thoughts were met with inadequate responses and another said family visitation was denied without clear explanation. Commissioners asked follow-up questions about DOC access, step-down opportunities, family support, and whether more transitional housing or acclimation time before release would help. No formal votes were taken beyond approval of the prior minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have one in collaboration with with the county because we're prioritizing that as well.
• It's a pallet shelter in collaboration with DeKalb.
• It started with collaboration.
• And I'm hoping that they're all also collaborating with you. Is that happening?
• I just think that working together, collaborations are important.

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• Where do they see places where they think collaboration could be greater?
• I think it should be the other way around, on collaboration and then consolidation.
• And I think that's one of the things—there's a level of collaboration. When they come out.
• We're talking about collaboration.
• How do we collaborate, like, officially? Not me, but, like, in general more.

Summary: The commission held an open discussion on how to develop recommendations for its report due at the end of September, with chairs Dan Hunt and Senator Brownsberger emphasizing that the group is moving from information-gathering into idea-sharing. Members discussed the need for more testimony from stakeholders such as reentry centers, correctional officers, unions, and the judiciary, and several participants urged the commission to use prior reports and existing data as a starting point. There was broad agreement that the work should focus on outcomes, transparency, and identifying gaps across the correctional and community supervision systems. A major theme was whether Massachusetts should move toward a more integrated, step-down model that better connects DOC, county sheriffs, probation, parole, reentry centers, and community-based services. Participants raised the possibility of expanding use of minimum security, pre-release, day reporting, and community justice support centers, and some suggested exploring whether sheriffs should have jurisdiction over people with longer remaining sentences, or whether judges should have more discretion to place people in county facilities. Others stressed the importance of involving the judiciary earlier, improving sentencing information, and aligning programming across agencies so reentry planning begins at sentencing and continues through release. The discussion also focused on facility conditions, women’s housing, Bridgewater, Framingham, restrictive housing, and the relationship between correctional settings and mental health needs. Several members called for more consistent standards, better data on spending and program effectiveness, and stronger accountability for evidence-based practices. The group also raised concerns about contraband K2, the need for cultural change inside institutions, and the importance of trust, staff training, and soft handoffs to the community. No votes were taken; the meeting was primarily a working discussion, and the chairs said they would circulate a written set of recommendations and continue the conversation at future meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• I just want to note, thank you, Senator, for your collaborative efforts here.
• So I appreciate your collaboration. You to continue to try working the bill.
• So I appreciate your collaboration around that. Are there questions, comments, or a motion?
• Opposition light and collaboration. Got it. This was our politics in this country.
• Opposition light and collaboration. This was our politics in this country.

Committee: Senate Insurance

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So thank you all very much. collaboration between both sides, so we're open to that too.
• We advocate for a return to less dangerous, more collaborative style of policing rather than trying to
• It's a collaboration between California Department of Social Services and UC Berkeley, two institutions
• It's why here in California, police departments do not collaborate.
• That's why here in California, police departments do not collaborate with ICE.

Committee: House Public Safety

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ,</c><00:43:13.599><c> but</c> seems like it's more collaborative, but seems like it's more collaborative
• that has happened in this collaboration that has happened in this committee<00:58:00.720><c> and</c>
• Uh, I do appreciate all the effort and collaboration that went through. >> We do have a motion for an
• Um, I do appreciate the collaboration and cooperation that went through here.
• Um, I do appreciate the collaboration and cooperation that went through here.

Committee: House Health Services

Keywords: 00:00:06 - Call to Order/Roll Call 00:01:23 - Review of Referred Administrative Regulations 00:02:00 - Discussion of 26RS HB 485 01:00:40 - Roll Call Vote on 26RS HB 485 01:03:25 - Adjournment, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This project, convened in close collaboration with the Ocean Protection Council, has brought together
• So we are in the process of analyzing what that collaborative network looks like in California to be
• So we look forward to collaborating with you and your staff on these and other important issues.
• So we look forward to collaborating with you and your staff on these and other important issues.
• I would actually reference in this moment a collaboration with the Ocean Protection Council to release

Committee: House Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture

Summary: The Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture held its annual State of the Fishery forum, focusing on salmon, Dungeness crab, kelp, ocean conditions, and related aquaculture and committee reports. Opening remarks from committee leadership emphasized climate impacts, reduced federal NOAA support, state investments through Proposition 4, coastal resilience funding, and the importance of fisheries to rural economies and tribal communities. Secretary of Natural Resources Wade Crowfoot described a decade of drought and climate stress, highlighted progress such as Klamath River dam removal, wetland restoration, and the state’s salmon strategy, and warned that federal funding uncertainty and staffing cuts could undermine restoration and fishery recovery efforts. Senator Cortese raised concerns about illegal cannabis cultivation damaging riparian habitat and water flows, and both Crowfoot and Fish and Wildlife Director Bonham said enforcement against illicit grows remains a major environmental priority but is constrained by resources. Director Bonham provided a broad update on California fisheries, reporting encouraging signs for salmon after several difficult years, including improved ocean conditions, stronger returns in some runs, and successful short recreational openings in 2025. He also noted major challenges, including reduced federal hatchery production at Nimbus, ongoing uncertainty around winter-run and spring-run recovery, and the need for continued habitat restoration, monitoring, and hatchery investment. On Dungeness crab, Bonham said the fishery remained valuable but constrained by whale entanglement risk, warming ocean conditions, and domoic acid concerns; he described new marked-line distribution, ropeless and alternative gear trials, and ongoing aerial and vessel monitoring. He also said the department’s unified cannabis enforcement task force had served numerous warrants and seized large amounts of illegal cannabis, but more funding is needed for sustained operations. In the salmon panel, Yurok Tribe fisheries director McCovey said the Klamath still faces low run sizes, climate-driven warming, wildfire impacts, and federal uncertainty, but he pointed to dam removal, restoration work, and AB 263’s river-flow protections as major advances. PCFFA president Bradshaw stressed that the three consecutive salmon closures have devastated coastal communities and argued for major reinvestment in aging Central Valley hatchery infrastructure and better broodstock management at Fall Creek. CalTrout’s Schneider said salmon remain at risk statewide, but cited Prop 4, habitat reconnection, floodplain restoration, improved water management, and monitoring as the main tools for recovery. In the crab panel, CDFW’s Schumann reported that the 2024–25 season produced record prices per pound and about $55 million in value despite delays and trap reductions, but he warned that three confirmed whale entanglements and elevated whale presence could force a conservative opener for 2025–26. PCFFA’s Domrash supported marked line, alternative gear, and a new gear-recovery network, while also criticizing the current ramp system as a response to a problem not fully grounded in science.

Transcript Highlights:

• Collaborating to add a new page, they provided no assistance with that.
• The scope of collaboration. Could you read that for me real quickly? Under two.
• Scope of collaboration. Just read it to yourself. I just want to make sure you're familiar with it.
• I'm more of a collaborative leader, but, you know, if you want to say a shot-caller, I'm more of a collaborative
• Hiring and firing, even that, you know, I collaborate with staff.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The hearing concerned a Legislative Ethics Board complaint against Representative Tara Simmons in Washington State OAH Docket 401-645. The judge outlined the process, the two issues on appeal—whether Simmons violated RCW 42.52.020 and RCW 42.52.070, and, if so, what penalty should apply—and admitted a number of exhibits by stipulation or prior ruling, while taking one exhibit under advisement pending an offer of proof. The board also moved to sequester witnesses, which was granted, and the judge deferred ruling on a motion to exclude three defense witnesses until after hearing the board staff’s case. Opening statements followed, with staff alleging Simmons used her position to benefit an outside organization and to secure special privileges, and the defense arguing the conduct was lawful, technical in nature, and consistent with prior ethics guidance. Board staff then called Kimberly Gordon, an attorney and founding board member/treasurer of American Equity and Justice Group (AEJG), as its first witness. Gordon testified that AEJG used data dashboards to make justice-system data more accessible, received state proviso funding sponsored by Simmons, and also received two donations from Simmons—$10,000 and $40,000. She said the first donation was intended to help hire Antoine Coleman, whom Simmons had recommended and who was later identified as Simmons’s romantic partner, and that AEJG returned the $10,000 and declined the $40,000 after concluding there was a potential conflict of interest. Gordon also testified that AEJG believed Simmons’s involvement in the organization and her communications about Coleman created ethical concerns. Gordon further testified about a second proviso intended to expand AEJG’s work into education data and its subcontract with Equity in Education Coalition (EEC). She said EEC did not perform the expected deliverables, prompting repeated communications with the Administrative Office of the Courts and a meeting involving Chris Stanley, where AEJG raised concerns that EEC was not complying and that Simmons had intervened in the dispute. According to Gordon, Stanley ultimately directed the parties to rewrite the subcontract and continue, but AEJG later moved forward largely without EEC’s assistance. The board staff introduced AEJG’s complaint and related timeline exhibits during her testimony. After direct examination, the hearing recessed for lunch, and cross-examination by Simmons’s counsel began when the hearing resumed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Collaborating to add a new page, they provided no assistance with that.
• The scope of collaboration. Could you read that for me real quickly? Under two.
• Scope of collaboration. Just read it to yourself. I just want to make sure you're familiar with it.
• I'm more of a collaborative leader, but, you know, if you want to say a shot-caller, I'm more of a collaborative
• Hiring and firing, even that, you know, I collaborate with staff.

Summary: The hearing opened in a Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings matter involving Legislative Ethics Board complaint 2025-5 against Representative Tara Simmons. The ALJ outlined the process, the issues on appeal, and the burden of proof, which centered on whether Simmons violated the Ethics Act by using her legislative position for others’ benefit and by holding outside employment that conflicted with her duties, and what sanction would be appropriate. Several exhibits were admitted by stipulation or without objection, while Exhibit 2 was initially held for later ruling but was ultimately admitted after testimony from the witness who prepared it. The board also granted a motion to sequester witnesses and took under advisement a motion to exclude three defense witnesses until after the staff case-in-chief. In opening statements, board staff alleged Simmons violated RCW 42.52.020 and RCW 42.52.070 by sponsoring a proviso that benefited her outside employer, Equity and Education Coalition (EEC), by using campaign surplus funds to help hire a friend, by intervening in a dispute over the proviso-funded work, and by sending text messages to influence others. Staff said it would seek penalties of up to $5,000 per violation plus costs. Defense counsel argued the allegations were technical ethics issues, denied Simmons profited personally, and contended the proviso funding her employer was permitted under prior board guidance; counsel also argued the campaign donation and later contract dispute were lawful and context-dependent. The first witness, Kimberly Gordon of American Equity and Justice Group (AEJG), testified that AEJG received state proviso funding and donations from Simmons, including $10,000 and later $40,000, which Gordon said were intended to fund the hiring of Antoine Coleman, Simmons’s romantic partner. Gordon said AEJG returned the donations and terminated Coleman after learning of the relationship and potential conflict of interest. She also testified about a later 2024 proviso involving EEC, a subcontract between AEJG and EEC, and a dispute over EEC’s performance under that subcontract. Gordon said AEJG raised concerns with the Administrative Office of the Courts, met with contract manager Chris Stanley, and ultimately rewrote the subcontract after Stanley, allegedly after speaking with Simmons, directed them to do so. The hearing then recessed for lunch, and cross-examination of Gordon was set to continue afterward.

Transcript Highlights:

• Over the past 18 months, this work, which was conducted in collaboration with consortium members, has
• The consortium is also participating in collaborations with nine other states.
• The consortium is also participating in collaborations with nine other states and with organizations
• My work and collaborative work has, among other things involved, the ecological impact and like real
• So this has to this point been a very good collaboration: New Mexico State University, the consortium

Committee: House House Agriculture, Acequias And Water Resources

Summary: The committee met to hear House Bill 207, as amended, which would direct the Water Quality Control Commission to adopt rules for permits allowing certain beneficial uses of treated produced water, including industrial, commercial, energy-related, infrastructure, pilot project, and other approved uses. Representative Brown presented the bill as a science-driven response to New Mexico’s water scarcity, citing the state’s 50-year water plan and research from the New Mexico Produced Water Research Consortium. The committee adopted an amendment requiring the rules to be informed by credible scientific data and other evidence, including consortium research, before moving to public comment. Supporters argued the bill would create a regulated framework for reuse of treated produced water, preserve scarce freshwater, and support economic development, construction, and energy-related uses. Testimony in favor came from the bill sponsor, the consortium’s Dr. Zach Stoll, the chair of the Water Quality Control Commission, business and industry representatives, local economic development officials, and some residents. They emphasized recent peer-reviewed studies, pilot projects, and the need for the commission to act on updated science. State agencies, including the Environment Department, said the amended bill addressed some of their concerns and kept the focus on science-based rulemaking. Opponents said the bill would override the Water Quality Control Commission’s prior findings and force approval of uses that remain scientifically unproven and potentially harmful. Many speakers from environmental groups, acequia and agricultural organizations, faith groups, and local residents warned about unknown contaminants, risks to groundwater, crops, roads, and human health, and the possibility of spills or long-term environmental damage. Several argued the bill would politicize a technical process and create liability or cleanup burdens for the public. No vote on final passage was taken in the portion provided; the committee recessed briefly after public comment and then returned to sponsor remarks and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:27:43.120><c> and</c> working together with collaboration and working together with collaboration
• bringing in all the uh the collaboration bringing in all the stakeholders<00:28:59.760><c> was</c><00
• We have the power to collaborate, to be creative, to challenge the status quo, to dare to dream what
• ,</c><00:36:47.119><c> to</c><00:36:47.280><c> be</c> We have the power to collaborate, to be We have
• the power to collaborate, to be creative,<00:36:48.480><c> to</c><00:36:48.720><c> challenge</c><00:

Keywords: 1183, house