Transcript Highlights:

• I am not hearing any feedback whatsoever. Oh, Jane, by all means. You might be on mute, Jane.
• And I appreciate everyone's feedback and discussion as well. Okay. With that, just some quick...
• So if you have any feedback on the digest as well, feel free to share that during this time period.
• So if you have any feedback on the digest as well, feel free to share that during this time period too
• Well, thank you so much for your time and your feedback. And I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission met to review the state budget process and discuss maternal and perinatal health funding. Members heard that the House did not adopt several maternal health amendments, including funding for community-based perinatal mental health grants, implementation of maternal health law items, private insurance coverage for midwifery care, a midwifery workforce development fund, birthing center grants, and the Tufts Center for Maternal Health Advancement. On the Senate side, several items were adopted, including funding for the Mass NOW menstrual equity program, $1 million for the Neighborhood Birth Center, and an out-of-state resident reproductive health training pilot; however, proposed funding for a midwifery workforce development fund, a health education trust fund, and the Tufts center was not adopted. Commission members discussed whether to send a letter to the conference committee. Several members emphasized that while the Senate wins were positive, the commission’s core mission is perinatal and postpartum mental health, and that the letter should note the lack of explicit support for perinatal mental health and PMAD-related needs, as well as the importance of infant mental health and the parent-infant relationship. The commission voted unanimously to send a letter to the conference committee highlighting the broader maternal health wins while urging continued investment in perinatal and postpartum supports. The meeting also covered commission vacancies and future planning. Staff reviewed open seats, including a House minority seat, several governor-appointed seats, an optional commissioner seat, and appointments for the Senate and House co-chairs. Members suggested possible representation from the Children’s Trust, families impacted by addiction, and midwifery. The commission also noted that April and June meeting minutes would be circulated for later approval, and that the legislative session is nearing its end with several pending bills related to perinatal mood disorders and postpartum issues. The meeting adjourned after no further new business.

Transcript Highlights:

• your superintendents and your board members, your communities back home in each district, to get feedback
• Personally, I'm very thankful for each and every one of you for your feedback and also for your staff
• And we want to make sure this higher amount, through feedback that we've received from your budget, And
• we want to make sure this higher amount, through feedback that we've received from your offices and
• Thank you for your feedback. You've been in your office, both as all of you have on the committee.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Education K-16 met to consider House Bill 2, the major public education and school finance bill. The committee first reconsidered and withdrew the prior committee substitute, then took up a new substitute. Senator Creighton explained several changes, including a correction to the golden penny yield weight, an increase in the special education evaluation incentive cap from $45 million to $67 million, timing changes to avoid a funding gap for Bluebonnet curriculum training grants, narrowed language affecting educator preparation providers, added facility-usage reporting language, incorporation of bilingual allotment language from Senate Bill 2185, removal of the $20 million annual cap on JROTC funding, and a prevailing-clause provision to make HB 2 controlling over conflicting measures. Members generally praised the bill’s historic funding level but raised concerns about details and future floor debate. Senator Menendez said he appreciated the special education, safety, and teacher pay funding but was not ready to fully support the bill because of inflationary pressures, facilities funding, and district-specific impacts, and indicated he might vote present. Senator Parker strongly supported the bill, emphasizing historic funding, teacher pay, and the need to continue refining the package. Senator Witt also said he would vote present while seeking more refinement, especially on certification issues for public and charter schools. Senator Bettencourt highlighted the bill’s scale, including about $8 billion in new funding and $1.3 billion for special education, while Senator Hinojosa asked for more flexibility in the basic allotment and thanked the author for bilingual education and coastal-area provisions. The committee then adopted the new committee substitute and voted to report HB 2 favorably to the full Senate. The motion passed 9 ayes and 2 present not voting, with the bill reported as committee substitute do pass and be printed.

Transcript Highlights:

• The next part of our agenda is our meeting-the-moment feedback.
• I'm starting to get more and more feedback from the room that you're in.
• We're incorporating some of your feedback.
• If you wanted to give any of your feedback about the town hall, that'd be great. Okay.
• So if you wanted to give any of your, you know, feedback about the town hall, that'd be great.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Massachusetts Permanent Commission on the Status of Persons with Disabilities held its quarterly virtual meeting and approved the September minutes. Chair Denise Garlick opened with updates on the commission’s first “Meeting the Moment” community forum in Needham, reporting strong attendance, a large resource fair, and mostly positive survey feedback. Commissioners said the event was valuable for connecting advocates, providers, and people with disabilities, while also noting lessons learned about accessibility, timing, and the need for more networking time and advance materials. The chair said the commission is planning future forums in other regions, including possible sites in Lowell, Northampton, and the South Shore. A major item was the new advisory council. Oz Osmondahar and Eman described the outreach and screening process, which drew roughly 60 nominations and emphasized lived experience, sector expertise, geographic diversity, and connections to broader networks. The council will serve as strategic advisors and thought partners, meet twice a year, and hold its first in-person orientation on January 30 at the State House Members Lounge. Commissioners were encouraged to stay engaged with the council and use it to strengthen commission and subcommittee work. Subcommittee reports covered employment, workforce supports, and long-term services and supports/health equity. The Disability Employment Subcommittee reported collaboration with SEED, a presentation at the Employment Matters Conference, a discussion with a disability employee resource group, and upcoming work with CED and veterans advocates. The Workforce Supports Subcommittee heard from the MassHealth Policy Commission’s Behavioral Health Workforce Center about workforce data gaps and an upcoming needs assessment, and plans to host ADDP on 2025 workforce metrics. The long-term services and supports committee discussed the Housing Navigator program, barriers to accessible housing, and concerns about how federal cuts could affect disability services and health equity. The commission also heard from DDS Deputy General Counsel Erin Brown and Associate Commissioner Chris Klaskin on a new law expanding access to records from former state institutions, including new notification and privacy procedures and a forthcoming regulatory process with public input. Commissioners welcomed the law as a step toward transparency and dignity. Amen gave an executive director update on the annual report, recent collaboration with the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, the Office of the Veteran Advocate, a national state-employer practice group, and the IDD/Autism Alliance working group. The meeting also included a moment of reflection for disability activist Alice Wong, a commissioner announcement about Work Without Limits’ virtual career fair, and adjournment after a motion and second were approved unanimously.

Transcript Highlights:

• I have questions about or want more presentations, and that feedback so far has been really, really very
• So that was big feedback from grantees. On the next slide, we also heard from them.
• So that was big feedback from grantees. On the next slide, we also heard from them.
• I think where the feedback that I got from classified staff were...
• So again, please fill out your form, and if you have feedback, that anonymous feedback form.

Keywords: 907, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And we also did a survey of cities and counties and got a lot of feedback there on individual...
• So did you get any feedback on that?
• So did you get any feedback on that?
• A close-out stage during which data collection, reporting, and feedback are received.
• But I do think that there's also a lot of feedback on sort of the experience... ...applied.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and how we responded to that feedback.
• We sat down with tribal leaders again on October 16th and tribal educators to hear their feedback.
• The court will take the feedback of the plaintiffs as they have throughout this entire lawsuit.
• Take the state's response, our response to that feedback, and then we will continue as we would.
• We'll go through a listening process to take that feedback and to develop those assessments.

Transcript Highlights:

• They had the courtesy of asking some business lobbyists for their feedback.
• I know what folks in the business community sent in as feedback.
• I'm not sure any of the feedback was incorporated.
• I'm not sure any of the feedback was incorporated.
• , so it looks like a little bit of a cursory effort at soliciting feedback.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: Senate and House Republican leaders used the media availability to focus on affordability and to criticize the Democratic majority’s newly released income tax proposal. Leaders John Braun and Drew Stokesbary argued the plan would raise costs, harm small and medium-sized businesses, and fail to deliver meaningful tax relief elsewhere. They said the bill’s marriage penalty, lack of loss carryforward, and treatment of pass-through entities were especially problematic, and they warned it could eventually expand beyond high earners. They also cited other pending measures they said would increase costs, including taxes or fees affecting insurance, tires, clothing, social media, cigarettes, and solid waste. A major portion of the discussion centered on Republican-hosted listening sessions on the initiatives, which they said were intended to provide balanced public testimony after Democrats declined to advance hearings. House Republicans said they invited speakers both for and against the initiatives, including a wide range of opponents, and emphasized that the sessions were meant to show the public a fair debate. They also discussed several policy bills they oppose, including housing and homelessness measures they said would limit local control near schools and parks, and a bill creating a regulatory framework for automated license plate readers, which they said still raises concerns for cities and law enforcement despite some improvements. In response to questions, Republicans said they support funding for public defense but believe it should be handled within existing budget priorities rather than through an income tax. They also said they are watching bills on government fraud oversight, SNAP restrictions on unhealthy foods, and public safety, including measures related to sexually violent predators and child safety. Throughout the event, leaders repeatedly framed their agenda as protecting affordability and public safety while opposing what they described as tax increases and regulations that would make life more expensive in Washington.

Transcript Highlights:

• WE BEGIN A PROCESS WORKING THROUGH THE FEEDBACK WITH PROVIDERS WHICH TOOK LONGER THAN ANTICIPATED.
• WERE THEY GAVE FEEDBACK ON THE DRAFT RULE.
• OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS THE DEPARTMENT WORK TO REFINE ITS RULES BASED ON THIS FEEDBACK.
• AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, WE GOT A LOT OF FEEDBACK THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.
• Overdorf: YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> I'VE HEARD GREAT FEEDBACK.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I definitely appreciate that feedback.
• um I've never unfortunately feedback um I've never unfortunately served<00:16:09.839><c> on</c><00:16
• So really appreciate the consideration and look forward to any future feedback and partnership.
• So really appreciate the consideration and look forward to any future feedback and partnership.
• </c><00:20:10.480><c> and</c> future feedback and future feedback and partnership<00:20:12.400><c> thank

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• 2 years, 2 weeks of the administration, the that the assessment so that really if it and in our feedback
• So that administrator giving good coaching and feedback to teachers so they improve the last couple.
• This is probably the first testing statewide testing system that has received a lot of positive feedback
• We can go through and look at the skills that are included in that and certainly love any feedback that
• So any feedback that you would have on our resiliency education standards, I would love to hear that

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm not hearing any feedback whatsoever. Oh, Jane, by all means. You might be on mute, Jane.
• We will get that drafted and out to the conference committee, and I appreciate everyone's feedback and
• So if you have any feedback on the digest as well, feel free to share that during this time period.
• So if you have any feedback on the digest as well, feel free to share that during this time period too
• Well, thank you so much for your time and your feedback. And I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

Summary: The commission reviewed the House and Senate budget outcomes for maternal and perinatal health-related amendments as the budget moved into conference committee. On the House side, amendments for community-based perinatal mental health grants, implementation of maternal health law, the Tuff Center for Maternal Health Advancement, private insurance coverage for midwifery care, a midwifery workforce development fund, and birthing center grants were not adopted. On the Senate side, several items were adopted, including funding for the Mass Now menstrual equity program, a $1 million earmark for the Neighborhood Birth Center, and Senator Rausch’s out-of-state resident reproductive health training pilot, while other proposals such as the midwifery workforce fund, a health education trust fund, and the Tuff Center request were not accepted. Members discussed whether the commission should send a letter to the conference committee. Several speakers supported doing so, but emphasized that the commission’s core mission is perinatal and postpartum mental health and that the budget wins, while important, did not explicitly fund PMAD or perinatal mental health priorities. The commission voted unanimously to send a letter highlighting the broader maternal health wins while also urging continued investment in perinatal and postpartum supports. The meeting also covered commission vacancies, including a vacant House minority seat, several governor-appointed seats, an open Senate co-chair appointment, and other commissioner slots. Members suggested possible future appointees or organizational representatives, including people connected to the Children’s Trust, addiction-affected families, and midwifery. The meeting ended with brief updates on upcoming minutes, future presenters, and the end of the legislative session, followed by adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• CHAIR HAVE YOU HEARD ANY FEEDBACK BECAUSE I HAVE INCESSANTLY FROM COUNTY COMMISSIONER SAYING THEY WIND
• AND I APPRECIATE THIS FEEDBACK FROM THE PEOPLE AROUND THE STATE AS ALWAYS.
• SENATOR INGOGLIA, SENATOR BERNARD, SENATOR SHARIEF, CHAIR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR FEEDBACK.
• THE FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED IS THEY STRUGGLE TO FIND THE ACTUAL VALUE THEY LEND OF THE APPOINTMENT.
• I'M HAPPY TO WORK ON COMPROMISE LANGUAGE THE REASON WE PULL THESE THINGS OUT THE OVERWHELMING FEEDBACK

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The feedback and ideas are incorporated into the strategy.
• Get the feedback from the business community, get the feedback from the communities.
• Get the feedback from the business community, get the feedback from the communities. right get the feedback
• from the business community get the feedback from the communities but I think it'll increase and spur
• interest for those consultations for different areas to come together and give their feedback on the

Bills: SB5871, SB5919

Keywords: motor vehicle, glass repair, insurance claims, consumer protection, regulations, fire safety, insurance incentives, best practices, community protection, voluntary measures, 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:23:43.919><c> is</c> of public hearings, public feedback is of public hearings, public feedback
• I've appreciated the feedback, and I think the DFL in front of you reflects a lot of the feedback that
• to continue to take feedback even from, I think, Senator Bahr offered us some feedback yesterday that
• We are open to feedback to make these concepts work.
• </c> been happy to continue to take feedback been happy to continue to take feedback even<00:42:45.839

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We had a lot of meetings, a lot of feedback back and forth, several drafts.
• So that’s the feedback that we got.
• had</c><00:09:13.720><c> a</c><00:09:13.800><c> lot</c><00:09:13.920><c> of</c><00:09:14.040><c> feedback
• </c> lot of meetings had a lot of feedback lot of meetings had a lot of feedback back<00:09:14.720><c
• that we got die so that's the feedback that we got so<00:09:56.959><c> what</c><00:09:57.120><c> we<

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate Agriculture Committee met to continue discussion of a committee substitute for a bill dealing with non-veterinary equine dental practice. The chair first addressed a procedural issue, saying any handouts distributed without the chair’s approval were improper and would not be part of the official record. The committee then reintroduced and approved the committee substitute by motion and second, before moving into member questions rather than hearing additional public testimony that morning. Senator Reed asked what testing would be required for state approval and about the bill’s timeline. The response said the bill would rely on an internationally recognized testing model, with education and continuing education requirements, and that the measure included an 18-month period to allow existing practitioners time to comply. Senator Deneen then raised concerns about the grandfather clause, the five-year lookback, and whether the bill could set a precedent that would further encroach on veterinary practice. In response, supporters said the bill was intended to create a structure for a practice that already exists, with training, insurance, a registry, and a grievance process to weed out bad actors while preserving access and affordability for horse owners, especially in rural areas where veterinarians may be scarce or unavailable. The discussion also included historical context, with members noting the issue had been considered during earlier veterinary modernization efforts and had been worked on through open work groups, surveys, stakeholder meetings, and multiple drafts. Supporters argued that without a regulated framework, some horse owners might not be able to afford veterinary care, which could leave horses untreated. No final vote on the bill itself was described in this portion of the meeting beyond approval of the committee substitute.

Transcript Highlights:

• It was not allowed to provide any feedback.
• It was not allowed to provide any feedback.
• And, after requesting an extension beyond two business days to review and provide feedback and comments
• And, you know, after requesting an extension beyond two business days to review and provide feedback
• we shared our concerns on the short turnaround time and asked for additional time to provide our feedback

Summary: The committee received a briefing from AHCA Deputy Secretary Brian Meyer and Florida Healthy Kids CMO Ashley Carr on implementation of HB 121, which was enacted in 2023 to expand Florida’s KidCare/CHIP eligibility from 200% to 300% of the federal poverty level and replace the sharp premium “benefits cliff” with a tiered premium glide path. Sponsor Rep. Bartleman described the bill as a bipartisan effort to help working families keep children insured while moving toward economic self-sufficiency. The presenters explained that the program remains a joint federal-state structure, with Medicaid unchanged and the bill affecting only the CHIP-related portions of KidCare. AHCA said implementation has been delayed by federal CMS actions. The agency reported that CMS first rejected a state plan amendment approach, then required revisions to the premium tiers under a new maintenance-of-effort interpretation, and later issued a new interpretation of continuous 12-month eligibility that would prevent disenrollment for nonpayment of premiums. AHCA said it submitted an 1115 waiver, but negotiations over special terms and conditions reached an impasse, and the state has filed litigation challenging CMS’s interpretation. Members asked about the cost of litigation, the effect on future bills, the review process for CMS documents, disenrollment and reenrollment rules, and whether any additional legislative action is needed; AHCA said no further state action is needed at this time and that the key issue is the pending federal litigation. Several members and the sponsor emphasized the need for immediate implementation and asked about possible interim relief. AHCA said current coverage remains in place under the preexisting program, that there is a 30-day grace period for premium payment, and that reenrollment does not require a penalty or back payment, though coverage is not active during lapsed periods. The committee also heard public comment from Nicholas Hessing of the Children’s Services Council of Broward County and the Florida Alliance of Children’s Councils and Trusts, who supported HB 121 and said the expansion could make about 17,600 additional children eligible in Broward County alone. The meeting ended with Rep. Bartleman thanking staff and expressing hope that the new federal administration would allow the program to move forward, and the chair adjourned the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• We were incredibly encouraged by the feedback we received from the attendees.
• And thank you for your feedback on that. It's certainly being heard.
• You guys had some great feedback.
• So I just wanted to add that to the feedback. And secondly, what kind of businesses are people?
• So I just wanted to add that to the feedback. Yeah, that's wonderful to hear.

Keywords: 1212, all

Summary: The Massachusetts Permanent Commission on the Status of Persons with Disabilities opened its June virtual meeting with roll call and approval of the March minutes. The chair reported on recent “Meeting the Moment” community conversations, noting strong attendance and positive feedback from the Lowell event, and announced the next community conversation will be held July 14 in Northampton. The commission also previewed its National Disability Employment Awareness Month event for October 7 at the State House, which will include a panel on artificial intelligence and its impact on people with disabilities. A major presentation came from the Supplier Diversity Office on its Empowering Abilities in Contracting and Employment (EAC) program. The coordinator described the program’s history from a 2016 law and 2018 pilot to its statewide launch on July 1, 2025, and said it now applies to new statewide contracts. She reported about 292 active disability-owned and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses certified, about 40 vendors currently on EAC contracts, and growth expected to about 80 by July and more than 130 by November. The program’s goals include increasing certification and contracting opportunities, improving workforce participation, and reaching a 3% disability workforce goal among vendors. Members praised the program and asked about the mix of disability-owned and veteran-owned businesses, geographic reach, and how the model might be replicated elsewhere. The advisory council update highlighted ongoing collaboration across access, employment, youth transition, housing, health equity, transportation, technology, and AI, with members sharing resources and planning to support the October employment event. Subcommittees then reported on recent work: the disability employment subcommittee heard about transition-to-employment barriers, the disability employment tax credit, veteran services, and a State Exchange policy brief on disability employment; the workforce supports subcommittee hosted a webinar on apprenticeships as a response to workforce shortages in disability services; and the long-term services and supports/health equity subcommittee heard presentations on care coordination resources and on health care inequities for people with disabilities during and after COVID. The executive director also reported on ongoing meetings with state agencies and advocacy groups about MassHealth, caregiving, aging, AI, and employment barriers such as the benefit cliff. The meeting ended with commissioner announcements on the Paul Spooner Generational Leadership Summit and a Medicaid summit, discussion of housing and transportation as employment-related issues, and a motion to adjourn, which passed unanimously.

Transcript Highlights:

• feedback.
• So far, there's some that are getting feedback in late or today for the first time.
• We've taken in the feedback we've received so far.
• I also appreciate the prime sponsor reaching out several times for our feedback.
• I also appreciate the prime sponsor reaching out several times for our feedback.

Bills: SB5925, SB5906, SB6070, SB6002

Keywords: Attorney General, civil investigative demand, CID, subpoena-like demand, investigative authority, consumer protection, civil enforcement, pre-suit investigation, document production, interrogatories, deposition, oral testimony, confidentiality, trade secrets, judicial review, enforcement action, Washington RCW, law enforcement powers, government transparency, due process

Transcript Highlights:

• That is great feedback. Thank you. Other questions? That is great feedback. Thank you.
• acknowledge the importance of engaging earlier and more often through the process to incorporate feedback
• Meaningfully, thoughtfully, all while incorporating feedback in the decision-making process.
• We are hearing valuable feedback from the committee that is helping shape our future engagement plans
• But that is some of the feedback that we have received from communities and that we continue to explore

Summary: The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee held a work session on HEAL Act implementation, beginning with an orientation from Environmental Justice Council member David Mendoza. He described the law’s purpose as integrating environmental justice into agency decision-making, community engagement, tribal consultation, strategic planning, and environmental justice assessments, with the goal of reducing environmental health disparities and improving accountability to communities and tribes. He also discussed the council’s role, the interagency work group, challenges with limited volunteer and agency capacity, and concerns about inconsistent assessment formats and future funding pressures. Committee members asked about council composition, including the balance of tribal, community, business, and other representation, whether the HEAL Act increases permitting time or costs, how “overburdened” and “vulnerable” populations are defined, and whether the council should be refreshed or audited. Mendoza said the statute is not limited to racial categories and can include rural and low-income communities, that the council has not quantified permitting delays, and that there is no formal audit requirement, though the council is discussing how to improve its work. Members also raised questions about the relationship between the Environmental Justice Council and the Office of Equity, with Mendoza saying the bodies are complementary but should coordinate more closely. The Department of Agriculture then reported on its HEAL Act work. Director of Equity and Environmental Justice Nicole Johnson said WSDA conducts environmental justice assessments for significant actions, applies an equity lens to licensing, funding, rulemaking, and strategic planning, and has completed 11 EJ assessments to date. She highlighted pesticide regulation, animal health, and weights-and-measures work as examples of environmental and economic justice, and said the department recently hired a full-time tribal consultant and has only 1.5 FTE supporting HEAL implementation. Members asked whether WSDA’s assessments apply to its role on boards such as the Forest Practices Board; Johnson said the department’s current understanding is that assessments are conducted on agency work. The Department of Natural Resources then presented on its HEAL Act implementation, focusing on strategic planning, community engagement, tribal consultation, environmental justice assessments, and equitable funding. DNR officials said environmental justice is being embedded in the agency’s 2025-2029 strategic plan, in its Community Access and Impact Plan, and in its advisory committee and board representation efforts. They reported conducting EJ assessments for sustainable harvest calculations, agency request legislation, and a prescribed burn manager certificate program, and said DNR has invested about $130 million in overburdened communities and vulnerable populations in fiscal year 2025 through wildfire resilience, youth education, and urban forestry programs. Committee members pressed DNR on how it identifies impacted communities, why landowners were not more visible in the process, how agency-request legislation is being assessed, and whether assessments are required for actions taken through other boards and commissions. DNR said its current interpretation is that assessments apply to internal agency actions, that some notices may appear on OFM’s notices page rather than the completed-assessments dashboard, and that it would follow up on specific questions about its posted assessments and process.

Transcript Highlights:

• JLARC's perspective and feedback will go a long way in helping the department better support the public
• director, who leads the hospital inspections and investigations group, Romero Cantu, to provide feedback
• From client and case manager feedback, we learned that the main challenges with the processes were the
• And we've also established multiple groups to give us feedback on all aspects of our book of business
• So effective September 2020, we developed a multiple groups to give us feedbacks on all aspects of our

Summary: At the May 14, 2025 JLARC meeting, members approved the January 9 minutes and adopted the 2025–27 biennial work plan with a minor typo correction. Staff reviewed the new work plan studies, including a drug take-back program fee/expenditure review due in December 2025 and a state energy performance standard compliance review due in June 2027, and noted JLARC’s recent session activity, including several bills passed related to JLARC work and recommendations. The committee then heard a preliminary cannabis market study showing Washington businesses likely produced two to three times more cannabis than retailers sold in 2023. Staff and RAND said LCB’s data systems are incomplete and unreliable, limiting regulation, tax verification, and diversion tracking; they recommended that LCB submit a plan by year-end for collecting accurate data by the end of 2026. Members and LCB discussed the long timeline for a new traceability system, the causes of missing sales and weight data, overproduction, diversion, and the social equity program’s effect on producer licenses. JLARC also presented a preliminary hospital oversight report concluding that the Department of Health is late on many hospital inspections, does not verify third-party inspection standards, does not review adverse health event correction plans, and could make hospital data more accessible. The committee discussed fee funding, language access, and inspection timing, and DOH said it would work on a strategic plan and continue coordinating with JLARC. Members also heard a preliminary report on the public records survivor exemption, which found agencies are using it but need more guidance; JLARC recommended keeping the exemption and having the Attorney General provide additional training. Finally, the committee approved the DDA processes and staffing final report for distribution, which recommended performance metrics, stronger data quality controls, and workforce planning; DDA concurred. JLARC also introduced proposed study questions for a future DCYF juvenile rehabilitation review focused on safety, security, programs, staffing, education, and contraband, and the meeting adjourned after members asked about scope and facility conditions.