Transcript Highlights:

• It's an annual license for a screening instrument to screen applicants. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And I'm going to try now, fingers crossed, to share my screen. Let's see. Let's see. Okay.
• Do you folks see my screen? Yep, we see your Amazon shopping cart. No, I'm kidding.
• This may not be where I want to be because I don't see what I need to see on my screen.
• We see you, but not your screen or your Prizo. Okay. You see me, but not my screen.
• I'm going to first see if I can get this full screen to make it a little easier to read.

Summary: The committee held its first meeting on artificial intelligence and data centers, establishing its purpose as a study and policy-development body rather than one aimed at producing many bills. Majority Leader Hogue urged members to move quickly, focus on federal and other states’ AI laws, consider possible federal preemption, child protections, and the siting and economic impacts of data centers. Committee leadership echoed that the goal is practical, balanced governance that protects North Dakota while allowing innovation to continue. Legislative Council staff provided a background memo and NCSL presented a detailed overview of AI concepts and the current state legislative landscape. The presentations distinguished narrow AI, generative AI, agentic AI, and theoretical AGI/ASI, and summarized major state policy themes: comprehensive AI laws in states such as Utah, Colorado, Texas, California, and Illinois; targeted laws on deepfakes, chatbots, health, education, notifications, and digital likeness; and growing use of appropriations and agency inventories. Members asked about Colorado’s repeal and reenactment, Texas’s sandbox and training provisions, oversight structures, and whether AI regulation is bipartisan; presenters said most issues cut across party lines, with broad agreement on child safety and deepfakes but more division on broader regulatory approaches. The federal update focused on executive orders, preemption, and congressional activity. NCSL described a White House framework favoring a single federal standard, a DOJ litigation task force, Commerce Department review of state laws, and possible funding conditions tied to state AI policy, though no formal state-law challenge had yet occurred. The presentation also covered a recent executive order creating a voluntary federal vetting process for advanced frontier models after safety concerns, and congressional proposals including a failed 10-year state moratorium, Senator Blackburn’s child-safety bills, the Kids Online Safety Act, a House-passed children’s digital safety package, a Senate data center moratorium proposal, and a House ratepayer/data-center bill. The committee took no formal action beyond receiving testimony and asking questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I’m going to try now, fingers crossed, to share my screen. Let’s see.” “Let’s see. Okay.
• Do you folks see my screen?” “Yep, we see your Amazon shopping cart. No, I’m kidding.
• This may not be where I want to be because I don’t see what I need to see on my screen.
• “We see you, but not your screen or your Prizo.” “Okay. You see me, but not my screen.
• I'm going to first see if I can get this full screen to make it a little easier to read.

Summary: The committee held its first meeting on artificial intelligence and data centers, established a quorum, and heard introductory remarks from Majority Leader Hogue and the chair about the committee’s charge. Members said the goal was to build a factual foundation on AI, hear from experts and stakeholders, and develop practical North Dakota-focused recommendations rather than simply produce a large volume of bills. Legislative Council also reviewed interim committee rules and procedures before the informational presentations began. Staff and NCSL presenters then gave overviews of AI concepts and the state and federal policy landscape. The background memo and presentations covered AI categories and terms, state laws in areas such as consumer protection, algorithmic discrimination, deepfakes, chatbots, children’s safety, health, education, and government use, as well as data center siting and economic impacts. NCSL described a growing number of AI bills introduced and enacted across the states, with comprehensive laws in places like Utah, Colorado, Texas, California, and Illinois, and noted recurring issues around transparency, privacy, liability, and protections for minors. A major focus of the discussion was federal preemption and the tension between state regulation and national AI policy. NCSL said a recent White House executive order and related federal framework seek a light-touch, innovation-friendly national standard, with possible challenges to state laws and possible funding conditions tied to compliance, though no broad federal preemption has yet been enacted. Members asked about Commerce Clause concerns, industry pushback, oversight models, and whether AI policy is bipartisan; presenters said the issue cuts across party lines, with broad agreement on child safety and deepfake restrictions but more disagreement on broader regulatory approaches. No votes or formal actions were taken at the meeting, and the committee recessed briefly for technical issues during the second presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Floor amendments will be shown on the screen on iLegislate and in today's folder on your box account.
• some language around the screening some language around the screening criterias<01:25:08.000>
• The first component of this legislation establishes transparency and tenant screening practices.
• <01:37:30.719> That<01:37:30.960> is what screening agencies involve.
• That is what screening agencies involve. That is not<01:37:31.360> burdensome.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So many of these changes regarding eligibility are making the Department repeat some of their screening
• processes over and over their screening processes over and over again. again. again.
• I mean, asking that they have to screen every applicant for their immigration status monthly—people's
• I mean, asking that they have to screen every applicant for their immigration status monthly—people's
• I mean, asking that they have to screen every applicant for their immigration status monthly—people's

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• For example, our staff must navigate multiple screens just to determine the history of an individual
• to the child and the risk to their own safety, but because vital data is buried across different screens
• screens just to determine<01:30:18.000> the<01:30:18.159> history<01:30:18.719> of<
• this information is different screens this information is not<01:30:41.199> always<01:30:41.639
• You had to go to how many screens? So I really appreciate this bill.

Bills: HF1380, HF1166, HF487, HF1553, HF1472, HF258, HF1911

Keywords: psychiatric treatment, human services, mental health funding, per diem rate, Clay County, disability services, assistive technology, remote support, advocacy, training programs, HF487, Wellness in the Woods, Minnesota human services, grant funding, general fund appropriation, peer support, substance use recovery, addiction recovery, reentry services, reentry after incarceration

Transcript Highlights:

• for individuals at mamogram uh screening for individuals at high<00:15:57.720> risk<00:15:58.040
• I can't see these screens, so hopefully this is going to work okay. Can you see that all right?
• I can't see these screens, so hopefully this is going to work okay. Can you see that all right?
• This is just a screenshot of the reports that were done for this year, and this last final screen is
• is just a a summary of what final screen is just a a summary of what has<01:18:07.120> been<01

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Schools perform routine vision and hearing screenings; that's how they know a kiddo might need glasses
• <00:16:37.720> hearing routine vision and and hearing routine vision and and hearing screenings
• that's how they know a kiddo screenings that's how they know a kiddo might<00:16:39.720> need
• test and newborn a newborn screening test and newborn screening<01:04:46.359> tests<01:04:46.720
• tests for I think they're over screening tests for I think they're over 60<01:04:48.960> different

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a hybrid hearing, despite the fact that the screen on this side of the room is not working.
• This is a hybrid hearing, despite the fact that the screen on this side of the room is not working.
• We're going to hold on that until we get the screen working so we can see you.
• Can we see the mayor on the screen here? There you are. Hello. Nice to see you. The floor is yours.
• Boston and Somerville already have similar job screening trusts.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a lengthy hybrid hearing of the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government, with testimony spanning local board training, animal welfare and enforcement, municipal charters, water district dissolution, and other home rule matters. Chairs Rausch and Lewis set strict time limits because of the large number of speakers and explained that written testimony would also be accepted. Members heard from local officials, advocates, municipal employees, and residents, with many bills receiving broad support from municipal and advocacy witnesses. Several speakers supported bills requiring or expanding training for local boards and commissions, including pre-service training for planning, zoning, and other land use boards. Supporters said training would help volunteers understand complex laws, improve consistency, reduce legal challenges, and speed up housing and development decisions. Related testimony also backed a bill to modernize historic district commissions and another to allow associate planning board members to serve more broadly when needed to maintain quorums. A major portion of the hearing focused on animal legislation. Witnesses supported bills to expand citations for cruel conditions beyond dogs, update dangerous dog procedures, improve animal health inspections and breeder oversight, strengthen tethering rules, and protect pet consumers. Animal control officers, humane organizations, and some victims of dog attacks described enforcement gaps and the need for clearer standards, while several dog trainers and the American Kennel Club opposed parts of the dangerous dog bill and tethering restrictions, arguing they would limit humane training tools and professional discretion. The committee also heard strong support for a bill to create a statewide pet shop and consumer protection framework. The committee also heard testimony on several local home rule petitions. Medford officials and residents strongly supported a new city charter that would replace the current at-large council with ward-based representation and periodic charter review. Wayland representatives supported a bill to preserve the library’s Millennium Fund as intended, Cambridge officials backed creation of an employment and job training trust, and Carver officials supported dissolving the North Carver Water District due to compliance and financial problems. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chair repeatedly invited written testimony and follow-up materials.

Transcript Highlights:

• software is tallying every second that a worker is not actively moving their mouse, facing a computer screen
• Certain violations may be known to workers, such as perhaps pointing a phone at the screen or leaving
• and they'll tell you how frustrating it is to deal with these automated application processes of screening
• SAG-AFTRA is Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists.
• this happen in states around RealPage, that uses well-known algorithmic decision-making for rental screening

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on several artificial intelligence bills, opening with remarks about the 9/11 anniversary and then broad statements from the co-chairs about AI’s promise and risks. Chair Farley-Bouvier and Senator Moore emphasized the need for guardrails, transparency, and worker and consumer protections, while Senator Finegold described Senate Bill 37, which would create a framework for AI model training with safety assessments, audits, incident reporting, Attorney General oversight, and workforce reporting. Members also discussed Massachusetts’ position relative to other states and the need for state action in the absence of federal regulation. A large portion of the hearing focused on the Fair Act, House 77 and Senate 35, which would limit workplace surveillance, restrict collection of biometric and location data, require notice and human review for automated employment decisions, and protect workers from retaliation. Labor leaders, including AFL-CIO, AFSCME, AFT, SEIU, building trades, and other worker representatives, testified in support, describing harms from bossware, automated benefits denials, hiring and promotion screening, scheduling, and monitoring in workplaces ranging from health care and education to manufacturing and construction. They argued that AI systems are already affecting wages, benefits, safety, and job security, and that Massachusetts should act now to set clear rules. The committee also heard testimony on House Bill 74, which would require informed consent and clear contract terms for digital replicas of voices and likenesses, with SAG-AFTRA representatives supporting the bill as a protection for performers and creators. Another major topic was Senate Bill 51 on social media algorithm accountability and transparency; child safety advocates, researchers, and a public health expert described harms from engagement-based algorithms, including exposure to harmful content, eating disorders, and youth mental health impacts, and supported independent audits and public reporting. A few industry and civil liberties witnesses supported regulation but urged balance, warning against overly burdensome rules while acknowledging the need for privacy, transparency, and accountability. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the hearing excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• We sent edits to you, happy to read them, happy to, if it's easy to bring them up on the screen, we can
• Do you want me to just talk it through rather than bring it up on the screen? What's best?
• Do you want me to just talk it through rather than bring it up on the screen? What's best for you?
• Mac is going to do his best to bring it up on the screen right now, so bear with us just a minute.
• beginning statements, I agree and appreciate many of the changes, at least what I could see on the screen

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Combating Antisemitism met to hear testimony from Chief James Hicks of the Natick Police Department, who chairs the Municipal Police Training Committee, and Chief Thomas Fowler of the Salisbury Police Department. They described the statewide civil-rights-officer model for hate-crime response, the HEART Unit, and MPTC training authority under POST, and urged the commission to recommend incorporating the IHRA definition of antisemitism into police training and to fund that effort. Commissioners asked about how law enforcement should handle antisemitic incidents that may not rise to crimes, the 2022 Mapping Project, masking during protests, and the role of HART; the chiefs said departments can update training quickly, that every department should have a trained civil-rights officer, and that HART’s expertise should be integrated statewide. The commission also approved the October 16, 2025 minutes after correcting an initial procedural error. The rest of the meeting focused on the draft report, especially the prefatory statement and the definition section. Commissioners broadly praised the report’s scope and the chairs’ work, but offered many edits aimed at tightening language, reducing advocacy tone, and clarifying the “Massachusetts way” of combating antisemitism. Several members wanted stronger emphasis on Massachusetts values, education, moral leadership, and the distinction between hate incidents, hate crimes, and statutory offenses; others urged clearer references to constitutional protections, First Amendment limits, and Attorney General review of legal statements. There was also discussion of whether to keep or remove references to alternative definitions of antisemitism: some commissioners argued that only the IHRA definition should be centered, while others said acknowledging other definitions was factually important and would reflect the range of testimony. Commissioners also raised specific substantive edits for later sections, including adding examples such as the 2022 Mapping Project, strengthening language on online intimidation, academic boycotts, and divestment campaigns, and clarifying that some conduct may be hateful even if lawful. In the higher education section, members praised recommendations on mandatory training, bystander intervention, trauma-informed responses, mental health supports, and campus climate surveys, while suggesting a few technical edits and additional best-practice examples. No final votes were taken on the draft report during this portion; the chairs said they would incorporate feedback into a revised draft before the remaining meetings and eventual vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• we've done to enhance coverage or benefits for members, we've done things like added preventative screenings
• for adding those additional coverages, things like colonoscopies, contraception, the preventative screenings
• And again, the rates that you see on the screen are what we would charge for LOA or temps.
• We are on to bill draft 56 related to diagnostic breast examination and supplemental screening breast
• requirement that requires a member to pay an out-of-pocket cost for a diagnostic or supplemental screening

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• we've done to enhance coverage or benefits for members, we've done things like added preventative screenings
• for adding those additional coverages, things like colonoscopies, contraception, the preventative screenings
• And again, the rates that you see on the screen are what we would charge for LOA or temps.
• We are on to bill draft 56 related to diagnostic breast examination and supplemental screening breast
• requirement that requires a member to pay an out-of-pocket cost for a diagnostic or supplemental screening

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to approve prior minutes, hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave, and related policy issues, and then recess for lunch. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the long-standing state-paid family coverage, cost-control measures, wellness incentives, the current grandfathered PPO and high-deductible options, and the effects of recent benefit mandates such as insulin caps, prosthetic coverage, medication management, prescription copay changes, and ambulance balance-billing limits. Committee members questioned the fiscal impact of adding benefits and the possible cost of moving to a non-grandfathered plan, while PERS and HRMS emphasized that health insurance remains the top-ranked employee benefit and that any major plan changes should be considered carefully. HRMS also presented compensation comparisons showing state pay generally below private-market benchmarks, discussed targeted market equity adjustments, identified ongoing recruitment and retention concerns in fields like nursing, IT, engineering, and attorneys, and reviewed leave policies, tuition reimbursement, and family leave comparisons with neighboring states. Job Service provided labor market data showing low unemployment, high labor force participation, and wage growth that still trails some neighboring markets, and OMB explained that prevailing wage requirements apply to federally funded projects under Davis-Bacon, not to ordinary state contracts. After lunch, the committee took up the required process for health insurance mandate bills and adopted an amendment to Joint Rule 211. The amendment clarified that the deadline for submitting mandate measures is intended to allow time for all required reports, including both the cost-benefit analysis and any Employee Benefits Committee actuarial report, while leaving the existing deadline unchanged. The amendment was adopted on a roll call vote, with several members voting yes and a few no votes recorded. The committee then moved into its jurisdiction review of bill drafts, beginning with a bill that would automatically renew pre-tax dental and vision elections; members debated whether it had any actuarial or administrative impact on PERS or the state, and the chair explained that the committee’s role was only to decide whether further analysis was needed before later testimony and recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Department of Health and the Department of Education to provide for de-identified visual acuity screening
• Department of Health and the Department of Education to provide for de-identified visual acuity screening
• provides relative to certain firefighters and fire service employees, and to provide for pre-cancer screenings
• for esophageal cancer. ...and fire service employees, to provide for pre-cancer screenings for esophageal
• cancer, and to provide relative to health care providers conducting those examinations and screenings

Bills: HR195, HR196, HR197, HR198, HR199, HR200, HR201, HR202, HR203, HR204, HR205, HR206, HR207, HR208, HR209, HCR87, HCR88, HCR89, HCR90, HR192, HR193, HR194, HCR80, HCR81, HCR82, HCR83, HCR84, HCR85, SB235, SB416, SB425, SB435, SB439, HCR15, HCR41, HCR76, HCR77, SCR3, HB91, HB167, HB227, HB243, HB264, HB321, HB335, HB398, HB492, HB623, HB624, HB660, HB689, HB708, HB719, HB802, HB804, HB884, HB906, HB926, HB934, HB940, HB955, HB968, HB969, HB978, HB985, HB1005, HB1022, HB1028, HB1029, HB1069, HB1077, HB1095, HB1104, HB1107, HB1185, HB1187, HB1199, HB1201, HB1203, HB1217, HB1220, SB66, SB68, SB76, SB139, SB336, SB475, HR1, HR17, HCR5, HCR4, HCR47, HCR32, HR38, HR96, HR160, HCR31, HCR61, SCR19, HB64, HB68, HB92, HB12, HB42, HB205, HB222, HB267, HB324, HB325, HB350, HB478, HB610, HB617, HB745, HB749, HB752, HB797, HB807, HB821, HB896, HB979, HB992, HB1000, HB1024, HB1050, HB1166, HB1172, HB1173, HB1207, HB1218, HB1223, HB316, HB549, HB578, HB748, HB798, HB824, HB988, HB989, HB1001, HB1032, HB1081, HB1108, HB1129, HB1140, HB1157, HB1192, HB1195, HB1198, HB1244, SB73, SB89, SB128, SB149, SB191, SB196, SB238, SB318, SB340, HB306, HB366, HB911, HB1161, HB1230, HB59, HB481, HB772, HB897, HB1003, HB1008, HB1112, HB1180, HB1189, HB525, HB1058, HB181, HB1118, HB1082, HB901, HR20, HR74, HB225, HB284, HB393, HB458, HB459, HB577, HB582, HB605, HB614, HB682, HB733, HB773, HB864, HB996, HB1035, HB1113, HB1234, HB1240

Keywords: Louisiana Young Heroes Day, Louisiana Public Broadcasting, LPB, house resolution, ceremonial resolution, special observance, youth recognition, student achievement, community service, public service, high school students, youth leadership, disability advocacy, autism, diabetes, epilepsy, foster care, STEM, robotics, literacy

Summary: The House convened with a quorum, opened with prayer and the pledge, adopted the journal, and then spent much of the day on recognitions and resolutions. Members recognized NAMI and proclaimed Mental Health Awareness Month, honored fourth graders from Alpine Christian School, Hunter Nation supporters, Vermilion Parish visitors, and Louisiana Young Heroes. The chamber also observed a moment of silence for Martha Odom, a Lafayette student killed in the Mall of Louisiana tragedy, and heard remarks condemning political violence and social-media harassment. Several resolutions were adopted or advanced, including measures on rural mental health day, domestic violence prevention, nurses’ day, wildlife studies, child abuse reporter training, privacy/FISA reform, and Law Institute studies on property, foreign-entity terminology, and carbon sequestration issues. The House then moved through a long series of committee reports and floor actions on bills covering criminal justice, education, health, insurance, transportation, alcohol regulation, wildlife, elections, retirement, and public benefits. Many bills were advanced unanimously or near-unanimously, including measures on school emergency plans, impaired driving, victims’ compensation, sexual assault response, Medicaid dental coverage tied to other procedures, TOPS Tech eligibility, early childhood student IDs, highway priority program deadlines, CDL rules, and toll dispute procedures. Some bills were recommitted to Appropriations or returned to the calendar, and several were amended before being sent onward. On final passage, the House approved H.R. 1 adopting the annual State Integrated Coastal Protection Plan for FY 2026-2027 by 101 yeas, and also passed H.R. 17 on TOPS return-on-investment study, H.C.R. 4 suspending certain feeding and baiting restrictions in chronic wasting disease areas by 63-30, H.C.R. 47 on child abuse reporter training, H.R. 30 on FISA reform, H.B. 12 expanding death benefits for reserve auxiliary law enforcement officers, H.B. 205 allowing parish supplementation of election commissioner pay, H.B. 224 on Medicaid dental coverage for related procedures, H.B. 324 on judicial salaries, H.B. 325 on TOPS Tech eligibility, H.B. 350 expanding a charter school’s grade levels, H.B. 745 extending special vehicle permit sunsets, H.B. 797 creating the Bayou Gold Program, H.B. 807 creating a workforce instructor capacity investment program, H.B. 821 moving the Center for Safe Schools, H.B. 896 on toll signage and customer service, H.B. 979 increasing first responder survivor benefits to $404,000 via amendment, H.B. 992 assigning early childhood student IDs, H.B. 1000 on highway priority program administration, H.B. 1024 creating a Democratic Party license plate, H.B. 1050 on CDL age and hazmat rules, and H.B. 1173 on installment agreements for OMV fines and late fees. Several other bills were reported favorably, amended, or recommitted, with no recorded opposition on most of the final votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, and there's numbers on the screen there and so Billy just did some estimates, but it can provide
• So, and there's numbers on the screen there and so Billy just did some estimates, but it can provide
• So, and there's numbers on the screen there and so Billy just did some estimates, but it can provide
• So, and there's numbers on the screen there and so Billy just did some estimates, but it can provide
• So, and there's numbers on the screen there and so Billy just did some estimates, but it can provide

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• to get the right kind of professional development within our schools so that we can get our kids screened
• to get the right kind of professional development within our schools so that we can get our kids screened
• 11.120> kids our schools so that we can get our kids our schools so that we can get our kids screened
• 12.480> the<01:25:12.719> right<01:25:12.880> kinds<01:25:13.120> of screened
• and get them the right kinds of screened and get them the right kinds of help<01:25:14.000> to

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So you'll see on the screen as several of the reasons, Past constitutional muster.
• So you'll see on the screen several of the reasons why it was still constitutionally deficient.
• So on the screen you'll see a number of issues that the court found at the time.
• raise revenue for education, but the General Assembly did pass new taxes that you can see on the screen
• Well, it's not showing on the screen. I guess it's not going to. There we go.

Summary: The meeting began with approval of the previous minutes and then focused on an update from the Department of Education on early childhood programs, especially the state-funded Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) program. Secretary Jacob Oliva and Deputy Commissioner Stacey Smith said Arkansas had received a federal Preschool Development Grant and described ongoing work to review ABC slots, which have been flat for years at about 23,800 slots and roughly $114 million. They said about 1,000 slots statewide are currently unfilled despite a waiting list of more than 2,000 families, and the department is shifting toward paying based on enrollment rather than guaranteed slots. Members asked about school choice, income eligibility, year-round access, curriculum flexibility, transportation, and whether funding should be increased or rebalanced; the department said it is collecting data, may survey providers more formally, and is considering whether to modernize income thresholds, daily rates, and other program rules. The committee agreed to form an early childhood subcommittee and asked the Bureau of Legislative Research to help gather historical information on income limits and other program details. The second major portion of the meeting was a legal presentation on the framework for Arkansas school adequacy by BLR education attorney Taylor Lloyd. She reviewed the constitutional basis for a “general, suitable, and efficient” public school system, the Dupree and Lake View cases, and the principle that adequacy and equity are different but related: adequacy asks what resources are needed, while equity asks whether those resources are distributed fairly. She explained that the General Assembly must define adequacy, study it, and react to evidence over time, and that the current adequacy definition includes curriculum and career/technical frameworks, the 38 mandatory Carnegie units, state testing standards, and sufficient funding. She also described the matrix as a funding tool, not a spending mandate, and noted that categorical funds are separate from the matrix. BLR’s Elizabeth Bynum then gave the historical framework, tracing legislative responses from Dupree through Lake View and into the present. She highlighted major changes such as the creation of equalization funding, fiscal distress and academic distress laws, the adequacy study process, the Educational Adequacy Fund, facilities and transportation changes, declining enrollment and student growth funding, and later adjustments to teacher salaries, isolated funding, and categorical programs. She explained that the adequacy study has evolved through committee hearings, surveys, site visits, and outside consultants, and that recent changes include updates to accountability references and the addition or removal of certain funding categories. Members asked follow-up questions about how the matrix is used, whether homeschool or private-school funding raises comparable issues, whether stakeholders include private and homeschool participants, whether school board members should be surveyed, and whether the state should revisit average daily membership versus attendance-based funding. No votes were taken on the adequacy presentations, but the committee did agree to continue the early childhood discussion in a future subcommittee meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• So you'll see on the screen several of the reasons why it was still constitutionally deficient.
• So on the screen, you'll see a number of issues that the court found at the time.
• raise revenue for education, but the General Assembly did pass new taxes that you can see on the screen
• Well, it's not showing on the screen. I guess it's not going to How do I get back to that?
• this link but if you go to this link here it will take you to this page well it's not showing on the screen

Summary: The meeting began with approval of the prior minutes and then shifted to an update from Department of Education Secretary Jacob Oliva and Deputy Commissioner Stacey Smith on early childhood education, especially the state-funded Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) program. They said Arkansas had received a federal Preschool Development Grant and described ABC as a large state program with about 23,800 funded slots and roughly $114 million in annual appropriations. Department officials said they are reviewing slot allocations because about 1,000 seats are funded but unfilled, while more than 2,000 families are on waiting lists, and they plan to reduce or reallocate slots from providers that have not filled them over several years. They also said they are examining whether income thresholds, curriculum expectations, daily rates, and summer programming should be updated, and members raised concerns about access, local control, transportation, and whether the program should better align with K-12 choice and school readiness goals. The committee agreed to form an early childhood subcommittee and asked the Bureau of Legislative Research to help gather historical data and other information for future discussion. The committee then received a legal presentation from BLR attorney Taylor Lloyd on the constitutional and statutory framework for education adequacy in Arkansas. She reviewed the Dupree and Lake View cases, explaining that the state must maintain a general, suitable, and efficient system of free public schools, and that adequacy and equity are distinct but related concepts. She emphasized that the General Assembly is responsible for defining adequacy, studying whether the system meets that standard, and reacting to the evidence, while the courts ultimately decide constitutional compliance. Lloyd also explained the current adequacy definition, the role of the matrix as a funding tool rather than a spending mandate, and the distinction between unrestricted foundation funding and restricted categorical funding. BLR’s Elizabeth Bynum followed with a historical overview of how Arkansas responded to the court cases and developed the current adequacy process. She traced major legislative actions from the 1980s through the Lake View litigation, including the creation of funding formulas, categorical aid, isolated funding, declining enrollment funding, and the 2003-2004 adequacy study that led to the Continuing Adequacy Evaluation Act and the matrix used to set foundation funding. She also described later changes to the adequacy statute, the financial reporting requirements for districts, and the ongoing use of surveys, stakeholder testimony, and consultant studies in the biennial adequacy process. Members asked questions about whether private or homeschool programs could use public funds for expenses like utilities, whether stakeholders should include those groups, the difference between average daily membership and attendance, and whether school board members are surveyed; staff said those issues would need further research or were outside the scope of the presenters’ role.

Transcript Highlights:

• I also do want to point out, members, that the screens apparently are not working especially well, so
• It's nice to see you again, even if it's only on the screen.
• if it's only nice to see you again even if it's only on<00:21:44.799> the<00:21:45.039> screen
• > members<00:21:46.480> do<00:21:46.600> we<00:21:46.760> have on the screen
• uh members do we have on the screen uh members do we have questions<00:21:47.360> for<00:21:47.520

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I do sometimes get texts, but really I'm looking up one bill on my screen and then something comes up
• Um, a lot of us aren't real savvy with the big screens, although I wish I was, but it affords me the
• I do sometimes get texts, but really I'm looking up one bill on my screen and then something comes up
• Um, a lot of us aren't real savvy with the big screens, although I wish I was, but it affords me the
• So, you go to the courthouse and you're looking at a computer screen; your court case is there.

Keywords: 916, all