Transcript Highlights:

• I knew that we were going to hold you into a special session, and that's okay if we need to finish up
• I think the time between now and when a special session is called will determine the length of the special
• I think the time between now and when a special session is called will determine the length of the special
• We have a going to special session.
• we're going to roll into special we're going to roll into special session.<00:18:06.400> At

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You You need this over here.
• We just need parents to know that they have access to it.
• We just need parents have access to it.
• at the cost of special education and We're looking at the cost of special education and the cost in
• So there's some logistical challenges with relative to special education uh, um, with relative to special

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Freedom Account Oversight Committee met on March 27 and approved the agenda, adding a request for clarification on how the Children’s Scholarship Fund separates applications for the EFA program and the education tax credit program. The committee also approved minutes from December 30, 2025, and March 27, 2026, with a request that the March minutes include a link to the live stream. Members discussed the status of pending Legislative Budget Assistant audit reports on EFA and special education, noting the reports were still not released and would likely come later in the summer after review by the Department of Education and the Children’s Scholarship Fund. A major topic was the EFA program’s administrative fee, which statute allows up to 10% of deposits. Children’s Scholarship Fund representatives said current administrative costs were under 8%, that staffing had been reduced through the ScholarVia platform, and that any unused amount is reconciled and returned to students at year’s end. Members asked for historical administrative-cost data and a written explanation of how the withholding and reconciliation process works. The committee also reviewed the distinction between the EFA and education tax credit funding streams and was told the two programs use separate applications and separate funds, though both use the same platform. The committee spent substantial time on assessment and accountability. Department of Education staff explained that EFA students may satisfy annual assessment requirements through a portfolio, a norm-referenced test, or the statewide assessment; only about 10 EFA students took the statewide assessment, while most used portfolios or standardized tests such as the California Achievement Test and NWEA. Staff described how statewide assessment data are kept separate by student identifier and can be aggregated for EFA reporting, and members asked for breakdowns by grade, test type, and school district. The department also discussed linking assessments through Lexiles and Quantiles and said it could provide a list of commonly used formative assessments in New Hampshire districts. The committee additionally discussed a possible PSAT addition to the state contract and the costs of the statewide assessment program. Another major issue was special education eligibility and services within the EFA program. Members questioned the rule allowing a medical certification of disability from a licensed professional anywhere in the United States as an alternative to an IEP-based determination. Department staff said the current system allows either pathway, that about 1,000 EFA students are identified as special education students, and that the program does not track growth or service alignment on an individual basis. Members expressed concern that the medical-certification route may be too broad and asked for data on the disability categories used. The committee also discussed career and technical education access for EFA students, noting that Senate Bill 491 would provide guidance and that House Bill 1817 would address access and funding issues, but that current law still allows EFA funds to be used to pay CTE costs. The meeting ended with a request for future agenda items and a decision to leave the next meeting date open until fall, pending further information from the LBA audit process.

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't need to have it, right?
• And so we certainly need certainty on that.
• And, of course, somebody has to run that equipment, so you need skilled labor, you need skilled workers
• a special session for the beginning of December we suggested a special session for the first week of
• I find it surprising that we hear that we need a balance, ...surprising that we hear that we need a balanced

Bills: HB2011, HB2089, HB2090, HB2092, HB2477, HB2785

Keywords: individual income tax, subtraction, Arizona Revised Statutes, retirement benefits, adoption costs, charitable contributions, health insurance, premium payment, Arizona State Retirement System, contingent annuitant, long-term disability, benefits limitations, disability compensation, social security, retirement system, elected officials, ASRS, eligibility waiver, age 65, education savings

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 2785, a tax conformity measure that would update Arizona statutes to conform to the Internal Revenue Code as of January 1, 2026, including retroactive provisions for tax year 2025. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would align state law with tax forms already issued by the Department of Revenue, provide certainty to filers, and deliver about $440 million in tax relief through provisions such as no tax on tips and overtime, a larger standard deduction, and a $6,000 senior deduction. Opponents argued the bill would significantly reduce state revenue, disproportionately benefit higher-income taxpayers, and should be considered alongside a broader budget plan. After debate and an amendment addressing retroactivity and foreign dividends, the committee approved HB 2785 on a 5-4 vote. The committee then took up several Arizona State Retirement System and education savings bills. HB 2089 clarified the health insurance premium benefit subsidy for retirees and passed unanimously. HB 2090 changed the disability determination period for long-term disability benefits from 24 months within a five-year period to a straight 24-month period and passed 8-1. HB 2092 allowed employees over age 65 to waive ARS participation within 30 days of becoming eligible and also passed 8-1. HB 2477 conformed Arizona’s 529 education savings plan to federal law, including expanded uses and a permanent rollover to ABLE accounts and Roth IRAs; testimony supported the cleanup and simplification, but some members raised concerns about the Roth rollover and possible use of transferred ESA funds. HB 2477 passed 5-3 with one present vote, and the committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:04:22.479> to him that we shouldn't have needed to him that we shouldn't have needed to
• special privilege to hide stuff.
• that are posted as this is a Special that are posted as this is a Special Assistant<00:06:27.599
• > privilege special treatment and special privilege special treatment and special privilege to<00
• themselves to have this special themselves to have this special protection<00:20:06.240> under

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House Majority Leader Harry Niska discussed House File 20, a bill he said would amend Minnesota’s Data Practices Act by adding the words “on individuals” to clarify that the private-data exemption applies only to information actually tied to an individual person. He argued the bill would overturn a 2022 Minnesota Supreme Court decision in Energy Policy Advocates v. Allison that, in his view, allowed the Attorney General’s office to withhold policymaking and closed investigative data even when no individual privacy interest was involved. Niska framed the measure as a transparency and democracy issue, saying the Attorney General’s office should not have a special secrecy privilege that other state agencies and prosecutors do not have. In response to questions, Niska said the Attorney General opposed the bill, citing concerns about the cost and burden of data practices requests and raising a broader question about whether some businesses might have privacy interests similar to individuals. Niska said the bill is not meant to eliminate legitimate privacy protections for actual individuals, including sensitive investigative information, but to prevent the office from using the private-data category to shield non-personal information. He also said the issue arose in part from information about outside influence on the Attorney General’s office, including funding for positions through NYU and the Bloomberg Foundation. Niska said the bill had been introduced by Republicans two years earlier but did not receive a hearing, and he expected it to come to the House floor because Republicans now control committees. He said Democrats were expected to vote as a bloc against it, and he suggested the vote would show where members stand on transparency. He also said other GOP priorities may move through committees and to the floor as they are ready, mentioning permitting reform, repeal of the nuclear moratorium, and an OIG-related bill, but he did not provide a detailed schedule. No vote on the bill was taken during the exchange.

Transcript Highlights:

• So in the rates case, we don't need to make that special; we don't have to refer to both unless you don't
• to make that rates case we don't need to make that special<01:34:40.800> we<01:34:40.920>
• Oh, special education.
• You don’t need to bring a special person in.
• fine you don't need to bring bring<02:01:54.560> a<02:01:54.639> special<02:01:54.960><

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Department of Education’s Bureau of School Finance provided an adequacy-funding training for Division II, led by Mark Mello. He walked the committee through the adequacy formula using Albany, Allenstown, and Alton as examples, explaining average daily membership, base adequacy aid, and differential aid for free/reduced-price meals, special education, and English language learners. He also noted a recent change requiring home-education differential aid and emphasized that these aid streams are generally unrestricted district funding rather than money tied to specific students or programs. A major focus was the ongoing litigation over the adequacy base amount and the statewide education property tax, or SWEPT. Mello explained the historical basis of the current base amount, the 2008 legislative report that set the original methodology, and the later court ruling that the adequacy amount should be $7,356, which is now before the Supreme Court. He also described how SWEPT currently raises a fixed statewide amount of $363 million and how that revenue is used to offset the state’s adequacy obligation. For the example towns, Albany and Allenstown receive state adequacy grants because their SWEPT revenue is below their calculated adequacy cost, while Alton is an excess SWEPT community because its local SWEPT revenue exceeds the cost of adequate education. The discussion then turned to the pending “excess SWEPT” issue in the Supreme Court and what would happen if excess collections had to be remitted to the state. Mello said the Department is preparing a hypothetical walkthrough and explained that, if the court upholds the Superior Court ruling, DRA would likely be directed to collect excess SWEPT. Members raised concerns about whether SWEPT must be used for educational purposes and about the cash-flow burden on towns if money had to move from municipalities to the state and then back to districts. Mello and members discussed possible administrative workarounds, such as credits against other state aid distributions, and noted that the committee would continue reviewing the mechanics if the court decision comes down during budget work.

Transcript Highlights:

• The conservation community is rising to meet the need.
• We need to take good care of them.
• We need to... And we're bombarded, but we need a little break.
• We need to rethink, we need to get away from the everyday hustle and bustle.
• You know, where are the needs, what are the greatest needs, and where are the resources?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition No. 25-15, H.5505, “An Act to Protect Water and Nature.” Committee co-chairs outlined the Article 48 initiative process and explained that the hearing was divided into expert, proponent, opponent, and public-comment sections. The first witness, Undersecretary Stephanie Cooper of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, described current state and federal funding sources for land conservation and outdoor recreation, said existing programs are oversubscribed, and noted that the proposal aligns with the Commonwealth’s 30% land conservation goal by 2030 and 40% by 2050. She also flagged possible governance clarifications in the petition, including board structure and administrative authority, while saying the administration has the expertise to manage such a fund. Proponents from Mass Audubon, the Trustees of Reservations, Mount Grace Land Trust, the Massachusetts Rivers Alliance, the Authentic Caribbean Foundation, and Bemis Associates argued that Massachusetts needs a dedicated, sustained revenue stream for conservation, clean water, climate resilience, and public access to nature. They said current funding is inconsistent and insufficient, cited estimates that the state may need roughly $300 million or more annually to meet conservation targets, and emphasized benefits to public health, mental health, biodiversity, flood protection, and the outdoor recreation economy. Several speakers said the measure would dedicate a portion of existing sales tax revenue tied to sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses, and that it would support both urban and rural communities, including underserved communities. Committee members pressed witnesses on the bill’s fiscal and constitutional implications, including how much sales tax revenue would be redirected, whether the measure is constitutional, how funds would be allocated among communities, and why the proposal includes certain revenue sources but not others such as ticket sales. Proponents said the measure would likely direct up to about $100 million annually when fully phased in, that it was designed as a “subject to appropriation” mechanism, and that legal review had found it constitutional. They also acknowledged that the proposal would reduce general fund flexibility but argued it would create a long-term investment in natural resources. The hearing concluded after public testimony, and the committee announced it would accept written testimony until March 27 at 5 p.m.; no vote was taken on the petition at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Health Needs program, which is a set of programs to serve children with special needs in their...
• Health Needs program, which is a set of programs to serve children with special needs in their...
• Health Needs program, which is a set of programs to serve children with special needs in their...
• Health Needs program, which is a set of programs to serve children with special needs in their...
• with special needs in their ...families.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The meeting was an informational walkthrough for the Health Finance and Policy Working Group, focused on committee structure, budget basics, and major health-related accounts and programs. Staff explained the roles of House Research and House Fiscal, then reviewed key funds used by the committee, including the general fund, government special revenue fund, federal funds, the health care access fund, remediation account, and drinking water revolving fund. They also outlined the committee’s main budget areas, noting that medical assistance is the largest general fund item and that the Department of Health is a substantial agency funded by a mix of federal, general fund, and special revenue dollars. A major portion of the presentation covered subsidized health coverage programs. Staff described Medical Assistance (Minnesota’s Medicaid program) as an entitlement for eligible Minnesotans, with no premiums or cost sharing, and explained its managed care and fee-for-service delivery systems. MinnesotaCare was presented as a separate federal-state basic health program for people who are not eligible for MA, with income limits, premiums for adults age 21 and older, and cost-sharing requirements; staff noted that federal premium tax credit changes affect MinnesotaCare premium ranges. The presentation also summarized MNsure’s role in the individual market and in determining eligibility for premium tax credits, cost-sharing reductions, MinnesotaCare, and MA. The committee also received an overview of health-related licensing boards and occupational regulation. Staff said Minnesota has 16 health-related licensing boards, funded mainly through the state government special revenue fund and subject to legislative appropriation, and explained that health occupations may be regulated by the Department of Health, the Office of Emergency Medical Services, or the boards under chapter 214. Interstate licensure compacts were briefly noted as a way to ease practice across states. No bills were debated and no votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's no need for this at all.
• that they need serving their communities.
• I don't call that a special interest carveout.
• election and a special election.
• Without a set timeline for calling special elections, dramatic inconsistencies for scheduling special

Transcript Highlights:

• So we need to make that point clear.
• We need to recognize that there was a need. Policy is only as good as how it's implemented.
• we need.
• We need services like that. We need support.
• Investing in effective educators, especially in high-need areas like special education and early childhood

Bills: SB26, SB 26

Keywords: teacher compensation, education funding, public school educators, teacher retention, teacher designation, SB 26, Texas Property Code, colonia, colonias, Spanish translation, bilingual contract, real estate contract, executory contract, residential property, border county, international border, economically distressed area, consumer protection, language access, translator certified in Spanish

Transcript Highlights:

• This includes dependent special districts, independent special districts, MSTUs, etc.
• And maybe they need it.
• Do I need closer? Okay. Thank you.
• Maybe we need to look inside and say we need to do a better job in a JALAC committee.
• So, as I said, I will vote for today, but I can tell you it needs work. It needs changes.

Summary: The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, a proposed constitutional amendment to reduce property taxes by lowering assessment caps on non-homestead property, expanding homestead exemptions over time, and allowing local governments to increase exemptions further. The sponsor argued the measure would provide broad property tax relief while requiring revenues to be directed to core services such as public safety, education, infrastructure, and natural resource projects, with a trust fund intended to help local governments transition. Senators raised concerns about the lack of a fiscal score, the effect on counties, cities, school districts, and special districts, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. Several amendments were debated. Senator Polsky’s amendment to explicitly authorize user fees and non-ad valorem assessments to offset lost property tax revenue failed. Senator Avila’s amendment broadening permissible uses of ad valorem revenue to include county constitutional officers and other expenditures approved by local governing bodies was adopted after debate over whether the bill would otherwise underfund essential functions. Senator Smith’s sunset amendment, which would have made the constitutional changes expire after five years, failed. Senator Smith’s amendment to allow tourism development tax revenue to support public safety and education also failed. Senator Graal’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund language was adopted, with supporters arguing the Constitution should not promise an unfunded account. Additional late-file amendments were considered. Senator Berman’s proposal to change the ballot title to more neutrally describe the measure as affecting property taxes and local community service reductions failed. Senator Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal was adopted, preserving school taxes. Senator Smith’s amendment narrowing the non-homestead assessment cap reduction to small businesses only failed. The committee then returned to the bill as amended and continued questioning the sponsor about eligibility, fiscal impacts, and whether the proposal could lead to local governments offsetting lost revenue through special assessments or other charges.

Transcript Highlights:

• They are primarily for children with special health care needs and those with special disabilities or
• Chairman, on the isolated special needs isolated funding.
• Any additional funding left over that moves down to isolated fund special needs isolated funding.
• Special needs isolated funding is for those districts that are considered isolated by law definition
• Okay, so special needs is like transportation? Yes, sir. There's a difference. Yes.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:12:46.040> taxing and then for special taxing and then for special taxing jurisdictions
• tax proceeds go to the uh Special tax proceeds go to the uh Special Districts<00:12:52.399> but
• of some specific programs like special of some specific programs like special education<00:16:12.000
• special education funding.
• showing uh a guesstimate of the special showing uh a guesstimate of the special ed<01:35:22.040>

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee first approved the January 21st minutes by voice vote. Members then resumed a school finance overview focused on how Minnesota’s “base” budgeting system works and how future committee targets are set above or below that base by the Ways and Means chair, in consultation with fiscal staff. Staff emphasized that school funding decisions are tied to the state budget base and that changes made by the tax committee can affect school levies and school finance more broadly. The presentation then turned to property tax fundamentals. Staff explained that roughly 65% of school district revenue comes from state aid and about 20% from property taxes, with property tax revenue applying to school districts rather than charter schools. They reviewed the two main school tax bases—referendum market value and adjusted net tax capacity—along with class rates, sales ratios, and equalization. They also described tax credits, especially the school building bond agricultural credit, which helps reduce the property tax burden on agricultural land in Greater Minnesota. Members discussed student choice programs and how funding follows students. In response to questions from Representative Quam, staff explained postsecondary enrollment options (including direct enrollment and College in the Schools) and online learning, noting that funding generally follows the student to the serving institution or district. Staff also reviewed Minnesota’s pupil-counting system, including average daily membership and pupil weighting, and explained that students attending charter schools, other districts through open enrollment, or online programs are counted where they are served. The presentation concluded with broader school finance context: funding sources, equity and adequacy goals, constitutional and statutory authority, and the state’s school data systems (EUP/FARS, MARS, and STARS). Staff also began reviewing long-term enrollment trends, noting the impact of the baby boom, later growth from the mid-1980s through about 2000, and projected modest declines in public school enrollment through 2029.

Transcript Highlights:

• Next order of business is introduction of special guests. Introduction of special guests.
• He is the director of special projects.
• Introduction of special guests. I’d like to introduce some very special guests this morning.
• Introduction of several special guests.
• We don't need them stealing our time.

Summary: The House opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, approval of the prior day’s journal, and a long series of introductions recognizing student groups, interns, visiting families, and guests, including the Tipton Lady Cardinals girls basketball state champions, FCCLA and FBLA students, Missouri Rural Water Association members, and legislative assistants. Members also highlighted Earth Day and National Arbor Day by promoting free tree seedlings from the Department of Conservation. The chamber then considered several committee reports and moved to third reading on House Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bills 3068 and 3049, a broad public safety package. Supporters described it as a vehicle for multiple bipartisan provisions, including driver’s education, human trafficking training for paramedics, psilocybin trials, intoxicated driving accountability, fire and life safety updates, AI restrictions, and protections involving explicit images of children. Opponents objected to anti-trans language and argued the bill was overly broad and constitutionally problematic. The bill passed 117-10 with 17 present. The House also passed Senate Bill 914, dealing with lateral fields and moving from perk tests to soil analysis, by a vote of 108-34 with one present, after supporters said it would help keep sewage out of rivers and drinking water. Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1142, a Secretary of State measure on certificates of good standing for series LLCs doing business in other states, passed 142-0 with one present. Members then took up House Bill 1758, a daylight saving time trigger bill. The sponsor and many supporters argued it would protect Missouri from neighboring states forcing a switch to permanent standard time, help tourism and outdoor recreation, and reduce health and safety problems associated with changing clocks. Opponents favored permanent standard time instead, citing research on circadian rhythms, health effects, school bus safety, and energy use, and some questioned the bill’s federal-law implications and state sovereignty issues. Debate was ongoing when the transcript ended, with no final vote shown on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Special education is our highest area of need in the state, impacted by the teacher shortage, and anything
• Special education is our highest area of need in the state, impacted by the teacher shortage, and anything
• Special education is our highest area of need in the state, impacted by the teacher shortage, and anything
• Special education is our highest area of need in the state, impacted by the teacher shortage, and anything
• with the most significant needs, including those served in special education.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Please call a special election today and let the people vote.
• We need someone in congressional District 18 that's gonna be our voice. We're paying our taxes.
• It can only be filled by special election set solely by you.
• There's a void that needs to be filled.
• And I'll say that again, we are respectfully asking the governor to call a special election now.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm here today to present CS for House Bill 973 related to special districts.
• There is a financial requirement for a review as well with special districts.
• And I still need an explanation on 266 to 268. I think some of the districts...
• My best judgment is maybe they need a budget and a staff.
• Maybe they need an outside audit and report. Maybe they need an outside audit and report.

Summary: The Agriculture and Natural Resources Budget Subcommittee met and first took up CS/HB 973, a broad special districts bill focused heavily on soil and water conservation districts. The bill would dissolve 35 soil and water districts effective December 31, 2025, based on an OPAGA review that found widespread problems such as lack of revenue, inactive boards, poor notice practices, public records issues, and late financial reporting. It also would let special districts use state contracts, authorize FDLE background checks for district employees, preserve fire district taxing/service authority after annexation, extend liability protections for outdoor recreation on certain district lands, tighten eligibility for soil and water supervisors, and shift complaint review to the Commission on Ethics. Supporters argued the districts are often inactive, duplicative, and costly to review, while opponents said many districts provide local conservation, water quality, outreach, and volunteer services and should be given more time to remediate. Public testimony on HB 973 was mixed. Several soil and water district chairs and related advocates opposed the bill, saying their districts provide local conservation, flood, invasive species, education, and coordination services at little or no taxpayer cost, and that abolishing them would remove local representation and collaboration. The bill’s proponent, the Florida Association of Special Districts, supported the measure as a limited-government and accountability reform, arguing that districts with no revenue or contracts should not continue. Members debated whether the bill was relying on the OPAGA report while also eliminating future performance reviews, whether the Department of Agriculture could absorb the added responsibilities, and whether the districts should have been given more time to correct deficiencies. The committee ultimately voted the bill favorably, with one no vote from Representative Hinson. The committee then considered CS/HB 995, which applies to Monroe County and the Florida Keys. The bill would exempt Habitat for Humanity in the Keys from construction performance bond requirements for affordable housing, extend the Florida Keys land acquisition/set-aside authority in Florida Forever for 10 more years, and extend the hurricane evacuation time frame from 24 hours to 24.5 hours to allow up to 825 additional residential permit allocations, phased in over 10 years and directed largely toward vacant buildable lots and workforce housing. An amendment was adopted to codify the 825-unit allocation and the distribution framework. With no opposition offered on the bill, the committee reported HB 995 favorably by unanimous vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• important thing is a chance special important thing is a chance special session<00:03:00.959>
• No date has been set special session.
• will happen between when that special will happen between when that special session's<00:03:31.120
• it back your caucus we definitely need it back your caucus we definitely need changes<00:04:18.239
• going to go into 12 plus special going to go into 12 plus special sessions<00:04:52.560> um

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: Legislative leaders said work on a special session was still ongoing, with no date set but a possibility of being called soon by the governor. They said negotiations had not broken down and were continuing in a bipartisan way, though there were still significant differences to resolve. Leaders also said that if a special session is announced, members would likely be called back on short notice, with enough time to return from their districts. Several bills were discussed as still being finalized, including the tax, health, human services, transportation, bonding, and non-compete measures. On health and human services, the main unresolved issue was how to handle the undocumented immigrant health insurance provision; one option discussed was moving it into a separate bill, but only if there were a guaranteed contingency to ensure passage and enactment. On taxes, leaders said the current skinny-down version had stripped out several provisions they wanted, including data center-related changes and sustainable aviation fuel language, so final language would determine whether they could support it. They also said discussions on a roughly $700 million bonding bill were still active, with no guarantees. On the non-compete ban, leaders said changes were still being discussed with committee chairs and the commissioner, and that their caucus wanted changes to Minnesota’s current policy. They also said they were not sure whether members were taking per diem during the delay, and one leader said he personally would not take it in a special session if the work was not done. Overall, the tone of the discussion emphasized continued negotiation and a preference for professional, cooperative talks rather than conflict.

Transcript Highlights:

• this work needs more champions. this work needs more champions.
• needs to look<00:14:05.360> like.
• That's what we need.
• That's what we need.
• And so when you're talking about a special session as we are right now, special sessions are good for

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• said we're we needed some reporting. said we're we needed some reporting.
• We need to build trust, we need to build transparency on these technologies.
• We need to have this amendment. that. We need to have this amendment.
• They need to be They need to earn CPW.
• Still needed work.

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, approved the journal, and received committee and House messages on a large number of bills. Committee reports advanced several measures, including House Bill 1335 from Health and Human Services, House Bills 1281, 1315, and 1255 from Judiciary, House Bills 1345 and 1417 and Senate Bill 139 from Education, Senate Bill 192 from Transportation and Energy, and a number of Appropriations recommendations. The chamber also received House-passed and revisor-transmitted bills, and later laid over the special-order second reading calendar until later in the day. A major floor action was adoption of Senate Resolution 26-009, which proclaimed May 2026 as ALS Awareness Month. The resolution described ALS as a fatal neurodegenerative disease, highlighted the need for research, multidisciplinary care, and support for patients and caregivers, and recognized Colorado ALS advocates and medical professionals. Senators spoke personally about the disease’s impact, including the minority leader’s remarks about his mother’s death from ALS. The resolution passed 35-0, and the current roll call was added as co-sponsors. The Senate then took up third-reading consent calendar bills and passed Senate Bill 186, Senate Bill 188, House Bill 1420, House Bill 1341, House Bill 1015, and House Bill 1423, with recorded no votes on Senate Bill 188 and House Bill 1015. Senate Bill 191, concerning gifts, grants, and donations for nursing-facility reimbursement, was amended on third reading to correct reporting language and then passed 32-3. Senate Bill 125, which would codify disability-rights protections in public schools in response to reduced federal enforcement capacity, generated debate over state responsibility and passed 24-11. Senate Bill 187, creating a commission to study Medicaid and adding managed care entities as stakeholders, passed 31-4 after supporters cited rising Medicaid costs, fraud concerns, and data problems. Senate Bill 189, concerning automated decision-making technology and consequential decisions, was introduced and discussed as an AI-regulation measure, but no final action is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• In 2025, subject shortage areas were identified by level of need, beginning with low, then moderate need
• , and high-need subjects.
• High-need subjects refer to subjects that need to replace 20% or more of teachers in that area each year
• needs.
• needs.

Summary: The committee first approved the May 18 meeting minutes and then received a Legislative Audit presentation summarizing Arkansas Department of Education grant distributions for fiscal year 2025. Auditors said the department distributed about $4.6 billion in grants overall, including $3.2 billion from the Public School Fund, $1.1 billion in federal funds, and $268 million from other state and miscellaneous sources, across 56 Public School Fund programs, 14 other state programs, and 29 federal programs. Members asked about specific recipients and programs, including ClassWallet, master principal bonuses, Economics Arkansas, and CDC surveillance funding; audit staff and Department of Education representatives explained that the report was only a distribution summary and not a recipient-level audit. Members also questioned why many districts showed lower funding, and staff said the decline was largely due to reduced federal and one-time COVID-related funds. Senators and representatives also discussed whether some incentive programs, such as master principal and national board bonuses, were tied to student outcomes, and whether Economics Arkansas was the sole entity named in special language for financial literacy funding; department staff said they would follow up on several details. The committee then heard a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on consumer price index projections from Moody’s Analytics and S&P Global, with discussion of CPI-U and core CPI estimates for future fiscal years. Dr. Carlos Silva explained that the forecasts generally trend toward about 2 percent over time and that recent projections may have understated actual inflation because of recent shocks. Members asked about the accuracy of past projections, and he said he would provide more detail later if needed. The bulk of the meeting focused on the final adequacy report on teacher recruitment, retention, and salaries. BLR staff reported that Arkansas had about 32,800 teachers and 473,000 students in 2025, with a statewide student-to-teacher ratio of about 14 to 1, average teaching experience of 11.9 years, and a slight increase in National Board Certified teachers. The report found that districts with higher poverty and minority concentrations generally had less experienced teachers, and that teacher shortages remained widespread, especially in special education, math, science, and foreign language. Members asked about licensure exceptions, alternative preparation pathways, incentives for ESL and special education endorsements, and the cost and return on investment of traditional versus alternative routes. Staff said some licensure exceptions are being phased out under Act 304 of 2025 and that they would follow up on several requested details. The report also found that teacher retention averaged 87 percent statewide in 2025, with districts retaining teachers at higher rates than charters, and that 30 percent of surveyed teachers were considering leaving the profession. Principals and teachers identified school leadership as the strongest positive factor in recruitment and retention, while workload and salary were the strongest negative factors. On salaries, BLR reported a statewide average teacher salary of $60,254 in 2025, with districts averaging $60,458 and charters $55,724. Arkansas ranked 45th nationally on average teacher salary in 2025, though its cost-adjusted ranking improved to 36th; among SREB states it ranked 12th, and among neighboring states it ranked fourth. Members asked about starting salaries, salary compression, district step increases, and whether the report should be shared more broadly with educators and school leaders. Staff said they would provide follow-up information on several questions, and the committee took no formal action beyond receiving the presentations and asking for additional data.