Transcript Highlights:

• It does not expand or restrict rights, and it does not reopen the policy debates around Amendment 4.
• What this bill does is add the exact... ...does not reopen the policy debates around Amendment 4.
• I work for Florida Rising as a policy associate. We are here in strong opposition to this bill.
• I will attack the impact of his policy. For those reasons and more, I oppose this bill.
• So I believe it's a good policy, Madam Chair.

Bills: S0092 , S0110 , S0192 , S0212 , S0260 , S0350 , S0394 , S0422 , S0434 , S0442 , S0484 , S0546 , S0556 , S0684 , S0696 , S0706 , S0748 , S0786 , S0820 , S0824 , S0838 , S0840 , S0848 , S0856 , S0962 , S1000 , S1014 , S1036 , S1050 , S1054 , S1080 , S1118 , S1134 , S1338 , S1480 , S1500 , S1506 , S1622 , S1724

Committee: Senate Rules

Keywords: employee protections, whistleblower, retaliation, public trust, ethics complaint, Commission on Ethics, Public Employees Relations Commission, public employee, local government attorney, public officer, adverse personnel action, protected disclosure, whistleblower retaliation, state agency, independent contractor, public employment, civil service, reinstatement, back pay, front pay

Transcript Highlights:

• In South Texas, it is a partnership, we're 50. 50% of the proceeds from the health care system go back

Bills: HCR21 , HCR22 , HCR23 , HCR24 , HCR25 , HCR26 , HCR27 , HCR31 , HCR41 , HCR42 , HCR43 , HCR44 , HCR45 , HCR52 , HCR53 , HCR66 , HCR67 , HCR73 , HR8 , HR10 , HR13 , HR20 , HR21 , HR50 , HR59 , HR61 , HR71 , HR74 , HR79 , HR84 , HR86 , HR90 , HR91 , HR102 , HR103 , HR107 , HR113 , HR125 , HR126 , HR132 , HR142 , HR145 , HR149 , HR150 , HR152 , HR167 , HR179 , HR181 , HR183 , HR186 , HR192 , HR196 , HR199 , HR207 , HR211 , HR212 , HR213 , HR216 , HR249 , HR256 , HR259 , HR261 , HR263 , HR272 , HR281 , HR285 , HR294 , HR295 , HR300 , HR305 , HR311 , HR313 , HR315 , HR316 , HR323 , HR331 , HR339 , HR340 , HR346 , HR349 , HR352 , HR357 , HR358 , HR360 , HR363 , HR374 , HR377 , HCR20 , HCR28 , HCR30 , HCR32 , HCR49 , HR14 , HR15 , HR19 , HR23 , HR24 , HR25 , HR26 , HR27 , HR29 , HR47 , HR48 , HR55 , HR56 , HR66 , HR85 , HR92 , HR93 , HR95 , HR96 , HR140 , HR155 , HR164 , HR204 , HR241 , HR242 , HR250 , HR253 , HR260 , HR262 , HR265 , HR279 , HR310 , HR312 , HR328 , HR332 , HR359 , HR362 , HR367

Keywords: recognition, award, petroleum industry, leadership, community service, HCR 22, House Concurrent Resolution, Texas Legislature, commendation, honorary resolution, Dr. James Olson, James Olson, University of Texas Permian Basin, UT Permian Basin, psychology professor, 50 years of service, faculty recognition, academic award, Piper Professor Award, Regents' Outstanding Teaching Award

Transcript Highlights:

• Our Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Partnerships Program...
• Our Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Partnerships Program, or ZVIP, has been going on for about 10
• So it's a public-private partnership, and that is to put in DC fast charging.
• Another relevant work product is completed in a partnership with British Columbia, where we examined
• We also want to highlight some of the partnerships and collaborative efforts related to SAF and other

Bills: HB2111 , HB2495

Committee: Senate Transportation

Keywords: Interstate 5 bridge, toll facility, bond retirement, transportation, state funding, vehicles, streetcar operation, public safety, urban regulation

Transcript Highlights:

• So, in your packets, um policy article.
• </c> estimated fiscal impacts of the policy estimated fiscal impacts of the policy items<00:01:30.240
• </c><00:05:23.199><c> is</c> Education Equity Partnership is Education Equity Partnership is eliminated
• </c> that's associated with the policy that's associated with the policy change.<00:09:41.519><c> On<
• </c> the senior policy director at Ed Allies. the senior policy director at Ed Allies.

Committee: Senate Higher Education

Transcript Highlights:

• But we'd been working in partnership with the Strong Reader Partnership, and in fairness to them, the
• members of the partnership are volunteers.
• The Strong Reader Partnership stated that the State Library provided guidance to the partnership in October
• The Strong Reader Partnership...
• So this was a true partnership and one in which I would say it was more than So this was a true partnership

Transcript Highlights:

• So I think it's definitely a place of policy that we should explore and advocate more.
• California already has a strong foundation of public-led housing policy tools.
• Third, continuing to lean into integrated public-private partnerships.
• and the structural piece that makes all these partnerships work.
• Public-private partnerships and unlocking government revenue bonds.

Transcript Highlights:

• But we'd been working in partnership with the Strong Reader Partnership, and in fairness to them, the
• members of the partnership are volunteers.
• The Strong Reader Partnership stated that the State Library provided guidance to the partnership in October
• The Strong Reader Partnership...
• So this was a true partnership and one in which I would say it was more than So this was a true partnership

Summary: The follow-up informational hearing focused on the State Library’s oversight of the statewide Imagination Library and the Strong Reader Partnership (SRP), including how the original $68.2 million state investment was spent, why funds were not redirected sooner to the Dollywood Foundation, and whether spending complied with AB 157 and later SB 105. Committee members repeatedly raised concerns that SRP and the State Library had been slow to provide documents, that quarterly reporting and other contract requirements were not met on time, and that the State Library did not escalate issues earlier. State Librarian Greg Lucas said the library sent one demand letter, relied on counsel’s view that SRP could continue spending its $4.8 million so long as it furthered the program, and later redirected about $55 million to the Dollywood Foundation after paperwork was submitted. He also acknowledged the library should have shared SRP’s final report with the committee sooner and said the materials eventually received appeared satisfactory, though the chair and Senator Grove remained concerned that there was still no clear accounting of books delivered by SRP. A major portion of the hearing examined SRP’s expenditures and vendor contracts, including Shipyard for marketing and web services, SAGE Strategies for management consulting, Lotus Financial Solutions and other financial vendors, and United Way California Capital Region for a small marketing grant. Committee members questioned whether some spending, especially Changecraft’s work during the AB 157 period, amounted to lobbying or attempts to influence legislation, which the grant agreement prohibited. SRP representatives said the work was communications and stakeholder outreach, not lobbying, and that invoices reflected the board’s oversight and the nonprofit’s startup and closeout phases. They also said some work continued during the rescission and closeout period to unwind contracts and return funds, and that any reporting delays were due to transition, lack of a reporting mechanism from the State Library, and the need to collect records after vendors were canceled. Members of SRP said the nonprofit was created to build the infrastructure for a self-sustaining statewide program, expand local partnerships, and support multilingual outreach in underserved counties. They described a working board that met regularly, selected vendors collectively, and used multiple financial and administrative contractors to maintain checks and balances. However, committee members pressed them on the lack of detailed invoices, the absence of clear metrics showing how many books SRP actually delivered, and the limited apparent return on spending such as the $581,708 Shipyard contract, the $125,000 website work, and the $5,000 United Way grant. No formal vote or legislative action was taken during the hearing; it was an oversight session aimed at obtaining explanations and additional documentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• [Music] The Education Policy Committee will come to order.
• </c><00:16:00.399><c> with</c> employed mentors and Partnerships with employed mentors and Partnerships
• procedures and policy.
• procedures and policy.
• </c><00:23:14.080><c> with</c> deepen the school partnership with deepen the school partnership with

Committee: Senate Education Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• In our outreach, we have found good partnerships from local schools to world events.
• We have a strong partnership with the Evergreen Council on Problem Gambling.
• So one of our first partnerships, which I'll go over the next two pages, was with Kenmore Air, where
• Finally, I want to talk about our major port and our partnership with the Northwest Seaport Alliance.
• It's been a great partnership for almost 30 years, and... ...a great partnership for almost 30 years,

Summary: The joint Senate Business, Financial Services and Trade Committee and House State Government and Tribal Relations Committee held a public hearing on a restated amendment to the Puyallup Tribe of Indians’ gaming compact. Washington State Gambling Commission staff explained the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act framework, the compact amendment process, and the role of the commission and ex officio legislators. They said the Puyallup compact, originally signed in 1996, has been amended several times and is now being fully restated to align with current gaming operations and regulations. Puyallup Tribal representatives described how gaming revenue has supported tribal government, cultural preservation, housing, education, elder services, health care, youth programs, environmental protection, and charitable giving. They emphasized the tribe’s economic development efforts, including businesses, construction, manufacturing, a port partnership, and responsible gaming programs at Emerald Queen Casinos. The tribe and commission also highlighted commitments to self-exclusion, signage, training, emergency access, and community services, while noting that the compact removes some old contribution provisions but does not change the tribe’s voluntary charitable work. Commission staff summarized key compact changes, including authorization for electronic table games, extension of credit, removal of per-facility limits, higher wager limits, a stepped increase in player terminal allocations, and new licensing/eligibility/registration and definition appendices. Members asked about how compact negotiations work and what determines the state’s interests; staff said negotiations are guided by the governor’s office, commissioners, and ex officio feedback. No public testimony was offered, and no vote was taken at the hearing. The commission will take public comment and vote at its Thursday meeting on whether to forward the compact to the governor or return it for further negotiation.

Transcript Highlights:

• We look forward to your continued partnership and look forward to working with you and answering any
• We deeply appreciate your partnership.
• We deeply appreciate your partnership. Okay.
• Thank you for the testimony and for, again, your partnership and the work here.
• I'm Pete Wilson, Senior Policy Director at T4MA.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Ways and Means

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 55, the governor’s FY25 supplemental budget proposal to spend about $1.3 billion in surplus Fair Share revenue. House and Senate chairs framed the bill as a one-time opportunity to invest fairly in education and transportation, while also noting the need to protect the state’s long-term fiscal balance. Administration officials said the proposal should be considered alongside the FY26 budget and related bills, since the governor’s broader Fair Share plan aims for roughly an even split between education and transportation over time. Secretary of Administration and Finance Matthew Gorzkowicz, Transportation Secretary Monica Tibbits-Nutt, and Education Secretary Patrick Tutwiler outlined the administration’s priorities. Transportation funding would go mainly to the MBTA and related reserves, including money for the Federal Transit Administration reserve, MBTA stabilization reserve, low-income fares, winter resilience, RTA workforce support, MassDOT workforce and project delivery, and micro-transit grants. Education funding would support universal preschool expansion, early education and care capacity, early literacy tutoring, adult basic education and ESOL, early college and career technical education, MyCAP expansion, and special education circuit breaker funding. The administration emphasized that many of these investments are one-time or multi-year measures designed to address current needs without creating unsustainable recurring costs. Committee members raised concerns about regional equity, especially the large share of transportation money going to the MBTA versus regional transit authorities and rural areas. Several members asked for more detail on how the proposal would benefit Western Massachusetts and other non-MBTA regions, and whether micro-transit and Chapter 90-related investments would be sufficient. Education questions focused on special education reimbursement shortfalls, federal funding cuts to school districts, and how CTE and vocational investments would align students with workforce needs. The administration said it would provide additional data on MBTA versus RTA investment and explained that the special education circuit breaker and transportation reimbursement changes were intended to improve predictability and relief for districts. After the administration panel, Jessica Tang of AFT Massachusetts testified in support of using Fair Share funds to protect public education amid federal uncertainty and cuts. She argued that schools are facing a fiscal cliff, that vulnerable students would be hit hardest by funding losses, and that the Fair Share revenue should be used to preserve services and support students’ needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• Haley Hines, the Director of the Policy Research and Quality Initiatives Division at ECECD.
• And thank you for your ongoing partnership on it. Thank you.
• Partnerships.
• You can see here how from From 2014 to 2023, we increased from 109 partnerships to 353 partnerships.
• But I also am really proud of the success partnership and what Engage has done.

Committee: House Legislative Health & Human Services Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to thank you for your leadership and partnership.
• The next policy relates to the The next policy relates to the elimination of state-only prospective payment
• This falls outside of the federal PPS policy.
• And then the final policy related to the UIS policy, And then the final policy related to the UIS population
• We set the policy for it.

Summary: The subcommittee heard an extended briefing on the impacts of H.R. 1 on Medi-Cal and CalFresh, followed by testimony from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and county officials. DHCS described major Medi-Cal changes in H.R. 1, including work/community engagement requirements, six-month redeterminations, reduced federal matching for some emergency services, narrower immigrant eligibility, reduced retroactive coverage, and limits on provider taxes and directed payments. CDSS outlined CalFresh changes, especially the expanded able-bodied adults without dependents time limit, reduced exemptions and waivers, and the new federal-state-county administrative cost split. Both departments emphasized implementation plans, automation, outreach, and county coordination, while acknowledging significant expected coverage losses and administrative burden. The LAO and an independent policy expert discussed how H.R. 1 could increase demand on county indigent care systems and public hospitals as people lose Medi-Cal. They reviewed the history of county indigent care, 1991 realignment, and AB 85, explaining that counties already rely on a patchwork of funding and that current realignment revenues are often used for public health rather than indigent care. They warned that counties may face large increases in uninsured residents, with wide variation in how counties respond, and raised concerns about equity, financing, and whether a more standardized state-county program should be created. Committee members pressed witnesses on county funding, exemptions, homelessness, older adults, undocumented residents, and the effect of administrative burden versus true ineligibility. County representatives from Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Tulare, and San Bernardino described the expected local impacts and asked for additional state support. They said H.R. 1 would drive major losses in Medi-Cal and CalFresh enrollment, increase uncompensated care, strain eligibility staff, and worsen homelessness and food insecurity. Several counties urged the Legislature to fund eligibility workers, preserve enrollment, and consider a CalFresh match waiver; Santa Clara and San Bernardino also cited local tax measures and staffing reductions already underway. No formal vote or committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are education policy coalition.
• communities to inform state-level policy and how we make sure that state-level policy is informed at
• Policy, uh Education Partnerships<00:54:27.599><c> Coalition,</c><00:54:28.000><c> the</c><00:54:28.160
• </c> to on our our uh so cell phone policies. to on our our uh so cell phone policies.
• </c><02:02:43.520><c> This</c> adopt a cell phone policy. This adopt a cell phone policy.

Committee: Senate Education Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• Redeterminations is often framed as a policy about work. It is a policy about paperwork.
• to these policy changes.
• to these policy changes.
• My name is Hannah Orbach-Mondell, and I am a policy analyst at the California Budget and Policy Center
• Workforce policy is access policy.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee held an informational hearing on the impact of federal H.R. 1 and related state budget actions on California’s health care system. Opening remarks framed the federal changes as a major threat to Medi-Cal, Covered California, hospitals, clinics, and the broader safety net, with warnings that millions could lose coverage and that costs would shift to providers, counties, and consumers. Testimony from the California Health Care Foundation and the Legislative Analyst’s Office focused on implementation challenges, the administrative burden of work requirements and more frequent renewals, the loss of federal funding, and the need for California to consider long-term structural changes to Medi-Cal, county safety-net programs, and cost containment. A Covered California enrollee, Chas Franklin, described sharply rising premiums for his family after losing subsidies, illustrating the personal impact of federal policy changes. Committee members raised concerns about whether premium increases were driven by H.R. 1 or insurer pricing, the cost of rebuilding county-based indigent care systems, and the need to account for the cost of inaction. Dr. Hernandez pointed to pre-ACA models such as Healthy San Francisco as examples of coordinated local safety-net care, while also emphasizing the importance of primary care, data interoperability, and the Office of Health Care Affordability in reducing waste and improving access. Department of Health Care Services officials then outlined the state’s implementation plan for H.R. 1, including work requirements, six-month redeterminations, reduced retroactive coverage, cost-sharing, and immigration-related eligibility changes. They said the department would try to automate eligibility checks, expand outreach, and train counties and partners, but estimated up to 2 million Californians could lose coverage over time. Covered California reported that the expiration of enhanced federal premium tax credits and new federal marketplace rules are already raising costs and reducing enrollment, with an estimated 400,000 enrollees at risk of dropping coverage. County, hospital, and safety-net representatives warned that coverage losses will increase uncompensated care and strain local systems, while one coalition proposed a temporary state-funded coverage option as a bridge if full-scope Medi-Cal cannot be maintained. The hearing concluded with a policy analyst urging stakeholder engagement, immigrant protections, and new state revenue options to preserve coverage and offset federal cuts.

Transcript Highlights:

• On our slide, we also have **Mark Hume**, who is our policy analyst.
• We began developing this map last month in partnership with our Communications team.
• Thank you for your time today, and thank you for your partnership in advance.
• I serve Healthy Climate New Mexico as their policy advisor.
• Also, we have partnerships with NTU, Navajo Technical University.

Committee: House House Government, Elections & Indian Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think, as the President mentioned, partnerships is what we're looking for.
• And community college partnerships?
• We are doing much more around partnerships with K-12 districts and community colleges.
• We're doing more internships, employer partnerships, and career readiness initiatives.
• I am currently in the dual master's program in public policy and social welfare.

Transcript Highlights:

• I am a budget and policy analyst with the Legislative Services Office.
• I’m a budget and policy analyst with Legislative Services Office.
• I’m a budget and policy analyst with Legislative Services Office.
• I'm a budget and policy analyst with Legislative Services Office.
• I'm a budget and policy analyst with Legislative Services Office.

Summary: The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee heard budget presentations from Legislative Services analyst Morgan Poloni and Department of Health and Welfare Director Juliet Sharon on the Division of Early Learning and Development, the Division of Public Health Services, and Family and Community Partnerships. Major topics included the Idaho Child Care Program (ICCP), the Idaho Home Visiting Program, the Idaho Immunization Assessment Fund, HIV and hepatitis prevention, ARPA-funded public health projects, kinship navigation services, and proposed agency reorganizations and transfer authority changes. Poloni explained that several divisions were recently reorganized, making year-to-year comparisons difficult, and outlined the governor’s and agency’s FY 2027 requests, including additional federal and dedicated funds for child care capacity, public health programs, and prevention services.

Transcript Highlights:

• policy work at both the state and federal levels.
• We are also working on developing partnerships.
• And policy.
• It's about partnerships.
• Next, policy and advocacy is important.

Committee: House House Rural Development, Land Grants And Cultural Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• And it really is a public-private partnership.
• And enforces building standards and local government partnerships.
• And the type of policy priorities we're trying to hit.
• And the type of policy priorities we're trying to hit.
• I'm the public policy manager with the California Council for Affordable Housing.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Housing Finance and Affordability held its first hearing of 2025 to examine California’s housing finance system, with opening remarks emphasizing the state’s severe housing shortage, high costs, and the need for practical recommendations to the Legislature and Governor. Co-chairs described the committee as an educational and problem-solving forum focused on financing housing production, first-time homeownership, mixed-income developments, and affordability across the income spectrum. Witnesses from state agencies and the development sector were invited to explain how housing is financed and where the system is breaking down. Panelists from the California Housing Partnership, the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee/State Treasurer’s Office, CalHFA, and Related outlined the “capital stack” used to finance affordable housing, stressing that projects typically rely on multiple public and private sources, including federal and state low-income housing tax credits, tax-exempt bonds, state subsidies, local funds, and rental income. Speakers noted that affordable housing rents generally cannot support full project costs without public subsidy, and that recent federal changes—especially the expansion of the 4% and 9% tax credit programs and the reduction of the bond financing threshold for 4% credits—should allow California to finance substantially more units. CalHFA also described its homeownership programs, including My Home, Dream For All, and disaster-related mortgage assistance, as well as its multifamily lending and bond issuance programs. Several witnesses and committee members emphasized that the system remains too complex, too slow, and underfunded. They pointed to the need for more state funding, a housing bond, a permanent funding source, and better coordination among agencies, while also citing recent streamlining efforts such as AB 434’s SuperNOFA, AB 519’s one-stop-shop working group, and the planned California Housing and Homeless Agency reorganization. Members raised concerns about equity, access, missing-middle housing, gender and racial disparities, and whether current programs adequately serve extremely low-income households and those at risk of homelessness. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing; the discussion ended with committee members and witnesses agreeing that both funding and administrative reform are needed to increase production and improve affordability.

Transcript Highlights:

• Care and the Disability Policy Consortium.
• I'm the policy lead for Seed.
• So these policies include policies that facilitate career readiness and work-based learning opportunities
• So these policies include policies that facilitate career readiness and work-based learning opportunities
• That there's some, like, policy issues.

Summary: The Disability Employment Subcommittee met with SEED (the State Exchange on Employment and Disability) staff for a presentation on state disability employment policy options and possible collaboration with Massachusetts. After roll call, the committee approved prior meeting minutes and heard an inspirational quote from Jane Goodall emphasizing that every individual matters and can make a difference. Members then introduced themselves and described their roles in disability employment, accessibility, state government, and advocacy. SEED staff Katya Alpanis and Dina Klumkina explained that SEED provides technical assistance, research, peer-state examples, and policy resources to help states advance disability employment. They outlined seven policy areas, including career readiness and work-based learning, behavioral health and retention, stay-at-work/return-to-work supports, employer recruitment and accommodation tools, disability-owned business development, interagency coordination, and state-as-model-employer strategies. They shared examples from other states such as Kentucky, Virginia, Alaska, Washington, Minnesota, New Jersey, Illinois, Colorado, New York, and others. In response to questions, they clarified that PEAT has been refunded and is expected to return online, and that SEED’s role is policy support rather than implementation of accessibility requirements. Committee members discussed Massachusetts-specific interests, including digital accessibility, existing state efforts, and prior SEED engagement with Massachusetts agencies and legislators. Members raised concerns about upcoming Medicaid work requirements and the risk that people with disabilities could fall through the cracks, and asked whether SEED could help inform state policy responses. The group identified two likely project areas: a Massachusetts state-as-model-employer roadmap and a youth/young adult employment and volunteer pipeline, potentially linked to transition supports and civic engagement. SEED agreed to follow up with briefs and a questionnaire, and the committee planned an offline follow-up discussion to narrow priorities and develop a scope of work. No formal votes beyond approving the minutes were taken.