Transcript Highlights:

• It's open for anyone who receives merit pay.
• Obviously, you're sitting here in front of the General Assembly.
• Well, congratulations on the merit pay.
• So that's a program or viewing just among the merit pay...
• “Is the program just among the merit pay scholars?”

Summary: The committee first approved the March 9 and 10 minutes, then heard a presentation from the Arkansas Excellence in Teaching Fellowship Program featuring three third-grade teachers from Poyen, Drew Central, and Cabot, along with Department of Education Secretary Jacob Oliva. The teachers described the fellowship as a year-long collaboration among 23 merit-pay recipients from across the state, focused on sharing classroom strategies, data use, and professional support. Members asked about teacher experience, how the fellowship information is shared locally, the role of merit pay, and how teachers are addressing third-grade reading and retention concerns under the ATLAS assessment system. The teachers emphasized early intervention, relationships with students, small-group instruction, progress monitoring, and communication with families; they also described community supports such as churches, food backpacks, and local donations. Several members raised broader questions about poverty, trauma, social services, DHS involvement, and whether similar professional learning should be expanded to more teachers. Secretary Oliva said the fellowship is a small subset of a larger merit-pay program, that participation was voluntary, and that the state is working to improve literacy supports, clarity, and alignment across grades. He also said ATLAS results are now available to schools and families much faster than in the past, often within 24 to 72 hours, and that the state is using the data to identify at-risk students earlier and support intervention before retention decisions are made. The committee then moved to the adequacy/resource allocation presentation from the Bureau of Legislative Research. Staff explained that the report is part of the statutory adequacy review and focuses on state funding sources beyond foundation aid, including categorical and supplemental funds. They noted that districts and charters spent more than $7 billion in the 2025 school year, with roughly 49% from foundation funding and 51% from other sources over the last three years. The presentation outlined the four categorical funds—Alternative Learning Environment, English Learners, Enhanced Student Achievement, and Professional Development—describing their restricted uses, student-based funding formulas, and the ability of districts to transfer some money among categoricals while keeping it within allowable purposes. Staff said categorical funds account for about 4% of total spending, or less than $300 million, and reviewed superintendent feedback on whether those funds met district needs, with responses varying by category and district.

Transcript Highlights:

• If that gets eroded easily, in my case my tenant stopped paying, so I had to pay that mortgage and pay
• Okay, so they escrow everything so that they can pay your taxes, so that they can pay your insurance.
• Okay, so they escrow everything so that they can pay your taxes, so that they can pay your insurance.
• Then I could pay a car rent, a record for RAF. So I can't pay that rent.
• Those are clients that don't pay rent. Those housing units are clients that don't pay rent.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government held a long public hearing focused mainly on two sets of issues: proposals to amend or repeal the MBTA Communities Act, and bills to allow local rent stabilization. Committee chairs opened by explaining the hearing would be tightly managed because of the very large number of speakers, with testimony limited to two minutes per person and written testimony still accepted by email. Members and witnesses were called in a mix of in-person and virtual order throughout the hearing. On the MBTA Communities Act, several legislators and local officials argued the law is too rigid and should be revised to account for local conditions. Speakers from small, rural, or infrastructure-limited communities such as Hanson, Halifax, Marshfield, Winthrop, Dracut, Carver, Rehoboth, and others said the law’s one-size-fits-all approach does not fit towns with limited water, sewer, transit access, or buildable land. Some filed bills would repeal the law, exempt certain communities, or create appeals processes based on infrastructure, environmental, or historical constraints. Supporters of the law’s changes emphasized local control and the need to avoid forcing development where communities believe it is impractical or inconsistent with town character. A large portion of the hearing was devoted to rent stabilization legislation, especially S. 1447 and related House bills. Supporters included legislators, city councilors, tenant advocates, labor leaders, housing nonprofits, public health organizations, and residents who described sharp rent increases, displacement, homelessness risk, and the strain on working families, seniors, students, and people with disabilities. They argued local-option rent stabilization would let municipalities cap excessive increases and prevent no-fault evictions while preserving flexibility for local conditions. Opponents, including small landlords and property owners, said rent control would discourage investment, worsen housing quality, burden responsible owners, and drive small landlords out of the market. Some witnesses also supported a Cape Cod/Island transfer fee bill and a suburban infrastructure fund, arguing those would provide local revenue for housing or roads. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We do have a fiscal note in front of us, so I will ask Miss Boyd to help us understand the fiscal note
• I don't know; it happens through an assessment mechanism, so the railroads pay for the inspectors.
• I don't know; it happens through an assessment mechanism, so the railroads pay for the inspectors.
• I don't know; it happens through an assessment mechanism, so the railroads pay for the inspectors.
• I'm referring to line 214. ...railroad companies pay a certain dollar amount to MnDOT.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It pays for half of all nursing home beds.
• You pay to do the wrong thing, you pay to fix what was done wrong, then you pay to deal with all the
• You can't pay your nurses.
• You can't pay your cleaning crews, you can't pay your phlebotomists the same amount when your revenues
• And it's not a fair price when we're paying six or seven times what they're paying for the same thing

Keywords: Michael Falkender, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, IRS, taxpayer privacy, nomination process, committee hearing

Summary: The committee convened to discuss critical issues surrounding the nomination of Michael Falkender for the position of Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. This meeting included a series of remarks from committee members who expressed divergent views on Falkender's qualifications and the implications of his appointment. Senator Wyden voiced strong opposition, arguing that Falkender represents harmful policies expected to be perpetuated under the current administration, especially concerning taxpayer privacy and IRS tactics. Meanwhile, other members defended Falkender, noting his extensive experience, including a commitment to transparency in government operations if confirmed.

Transcript Highlights:

• , figuring out how they are going to pay for this testing.
• It is happening right in front of us.
• But you issue the license, and you make us pay for it.
• and I pay my own food.
• I pay his gas, I pay his food.

Bills: SB5, SB11, SB12, SB 5, SB 11, SB 12

Keywords: hemp regulation, consumable products, cannabinoids, occupational licenses, criminal offenses, SB 11, Texas attorney general, election crimes, election law enforcement, criminal prosecution, Election Code, Government Code Chapter 402, local prosecutors, county attorney, district attorney, grand jury, probable cause reports, state election offenses, voter fraud, election integrity

Transcript Highlights:

• If not, I'm going to in front of you.
• Uh whether it's has to pay those costs.
• policy is going to pay out the $15,000. policy is going to pay out the $15,000.
• if our deductible is $1,000, we'd pay if our deductible is $1,000, we'd pay $9,000<00:58:30.640>
• When owners cannot pay these them.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• property taxpayers are paying for that. property taxpayers are paying for that.
• paying what for this? paying what for this?
• <02:42:22.720> pay<02:42:23.359> model, college um tuition and pay pay model, college
• um tuition and pay pay model, but<02:42:23.840> it's<02:42:24.080> close.
• Um, so we pay for that.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And we all know if the employer's paying more, that means that's less he can pay to wages or she can
• pay to wages.
• Some pay more, some pay less. Some aren't part of your plan; some are, right?
• So even though you're paying 50%, you mentioned, you know, I've got to pay 50%. Yes.
• Who pays the list price? The only person that pays the list price is the uninsured patient.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And this is how we pay the bills, basically. Yes.
• It's usually, we hold enough in that actual fund to pay open claims.
• Businesses do pay sales tax on goods generally.
• So any attempt to try to tailor it is difficult because they're paying up front.
• They are paying for rent because they need to house themselves.

Summary: The committee opened with the State Controller’s Office May Revision requests, including funding for Fiscal book-of-record stabilization, a Broadcom IDMS licensing adjustment, the California State Payroll System, ACFR reporting automation, and $3 million for unclaimed property outreach. Testimony emphasized progress on Fiscal becoming the state’s accounting book of record in July, faster ACFR publication, and the move to electronic unclaimed property claims. Members asked about the size of the unclaimed property fund and how quickly money is transferred to the General Fund; the Controller’s office said about $15 billion is held, with most excess transferred regularly, and the LAO noted the fund is the General Fund’s fourth-largest revenue source. No concerns were raised by Finance or the LAO, and the item was closed after no public comment. The committee then heard the administration’s proposal to tax prewritten digital software and software-as-a-service, with Finance saying it would modernize sales tax treatment and raise an estimated $450 million General Fund and $560 million local revenue in 2026-27. The LAO supported modernizing the tax but suggested broader digital goods coverage and a business-use exemption; industry and taxpayer groups opposed the proposal, warning of higher costs for consumers and businesses. Members also heard CDTFA’s administrative request tied to the proposal, plus a separate CDTFA budget reduction reflecting lower operational needs; that reduction was presented as a savings item and drew positive reactions. Next, the committee considered federal conformity for “Trump accounts,” which would align California tax treatment with federal rules for tax-deferred children’s accounts and avoid tracking burdens for families. The LAO recommended approval, and the item drew no opposition. The committee also heard a proposal to cut the first-year $800 annual business tax to $400 for LLCs, LPs, and LLPs; Finance argued it would lower startup costs and encourage new business formation, while the LAO said the benefit was not well targeted and could subsidize entities that would form anyway. Members discussed the policy tradeoff, and public commenters split between support for small business relief and concern about revenue loss. The final major revenue item was a permanent business tax credit limitation, capping credits at the greater of $5 million per corporation or 50% of pre-credit liability, while excluding the low-income housing tax credit and personal income tax credits. Finance said it would raise significant revenue from large profitable corporations, and the LAO said it was a reasonable option but noted it would mainly affect the R&D credit and could have future implications for programs like California Competes. Public testimony was sharply divided, with business groups opposing the cap and anti-poverty advocates supporting it as a way to recapture revenue. The committee also heard FTB’s CalFile realignment request, which would return most of the direct-file-related resources to the General Fund while retaining a smaller staff to improve CalFile, and the California Arts Council’s request to reauthorize the Keep Arts in Schools voluntary contribution fund, which members and advocates supported despite relatively modest annual donations. The hearing continued with GoBiz proposals on civic media funding, CA RISE reappropriation, and a semiconductor facility reversion, with the LAO supporting the latter two and members raising questions about the civic media program’s scope, outreach, and inclusion of broadcast and ethnic media.

Transcript Highlights:

• How much do we typically pay per month for Medi-Cal?
• Is this allocation paying? And so we will have to pay back that loan.
• Is this allocation paying back that loan? This allocation is not paying back that loan.
• But we're not paying ourselves out of this $2.8 billion.
• Who pays for that?

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on SB 100/AB 100, the early action budget bills, with a focus on Medi-Cal funding, wildfire recovery, and several smaller budget adjustments. The Department of Finance explained that the bill would add $2.8 billion General Fund and $8.3 billion federal funds for Medi-Cal, along with other items including wildfire-related local assistance for Los Angeles County, property tax backfills for fire-damaged local agencies, Cal OES wildfire monitoring authority, nonprofit security grants, the Property Tax Postponement Fund, FARMER and Clean Cars for All funding, foster family home insurance claims, Proposition 98 technical assistance for LA wildfire-impacted schools, teacher credentialing authority, and Proposition 4 climate bond appropriations for wildfire and forest resilience projects. Much of the member discussion centered on rising Medi-Cal costs, the recent $3.4 billion cash-flow loan, and whether the new appropriation would cover payments through June. Finance said the new funds were for program costs and cash flow, not repayment of the loan, and that no additional loan authority remained. Members also debated the causes of higher Medi-Cal spending, including expanded eligibility, higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, and federal policy changes. The LAO noted that forecasting errors are not unusual but that current revisions are somewhat higher than typical, though not unprecedented. Several members emphasized that Medi-Cal supports access to care and hospital stability, while others raised concerns about sustainability and future federal cuts. Public commenters largely supported the bill, especially the Medi-Cal funding and wildfire-related provisions. Health and labor advocates argued that the program is functioning as intended by covering more low-income Californians and preventing uncompensated care. Representatives of special districts and the Altadena Library District supported the property tax backfill provisions tied to the Eaton fire. The hearing ended without a vote, with the chair noting that the committee would adjourn for floor session and that the Assembly would vote on one of the early action bills later that morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• Paying or reporting fuel taxes? Oh, yeah, no.
• for the roads that everyone else pays for.
• Look at seven says we're going to pay for it? Mr.
• It makes it easier because they have in front of them the measure.
• It makes it easier because they have in front of them the measure.

Summary: The committee met to review and adopt Legislative Council ballot measure analyses, with members repeatedly reminded that the hearing was limited to the accuracy, clarity, and impartiality of the summaries and not the merits of the underlying proposals. Steve Premack explained the statutory role of the analyses in the publicity pamphlet, and staff presented draft language for several measures. The committee considered and voted on multiple amendments, often debating whether proposed wording was clearer or instead crossed into advocacy or added unnecessary legal detail. For SCR 1004, members debated amendments to more closely mirror the measure’s text and to add language about electric vehicles and mileage, but several proposed changes were rejected. The analysis was ultimately adopted by an 8-6 roll call. HCR 2021 was then adopted without amendment by the same 8-6 margin. For HCR 2055, members debated whether the summary should say the Department of Homeland Security must “do everything” or “use all lawful means available,” and whether to add language about cartels acting “individually or collectively”; both amendments were rejected and the analysis was adopted 8-6. The committee next took up SCR 1004 on photo enforcement systems, where members proposed amendments to clarify that the measure would apply to red light cameras, to add “thereafter” regarding recurring voter approval, and to specify that approval would occur at the general election; those amendments failed, and the analysis was adopted 8-6. On SCR 1032, dealing with instructional expenses and classroom site fund reductions, members debated adding a definition of the Classroom Site Fund and spelling out the waiver process in more detail; both amendments failed, and the analysis was adopted 8-6. Finally, on HCR 2001 regarding citizenship identification and early voting, members rejected amendments that would have added background on current law, clarified that mail voting would be affected, added severability and revenue-source language, and struck the measure’s short title; the discussion was lengthy and at times contentious, but the transcript ends before a final roll-call vote on that measure is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will come in front of you.
• So, Madam Chair, they pay for their personal data system, but they do not pay to be integrated and have
• So they pay some vendor, whoever it is, Motorola or whoever for their CAD, and they pay whoever for their
• That's the analytics software paying for all that.
• So they're not paying for anything in addition to what they already were paying for, just as part of

Transcript Highlights:

• , and as... ...services to meet the resident preferences and their ability to pay.
• So people will be paying out of pocket for that, correct? Correct. Correct. All right.
• So that feeds into the financial performance, the ability to pay back.
• But I'm not sure why they shouldn't start paying interest after a certain amount of time.
• Shouldn't start paying interest after a certain amount of time.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission meeting focused on continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), beginning with a presentation from Two Life Communities on its Opus Newton model, which is opening in the fall. Two Life described Opus as a middle-income, modern CCRC built around affordability, care coordination in residents’ apartments rather than separate care buildings, and resident-driven community life. Commissioners asked about financing, home care arrangements, affordability, Medicaid/MassHealth access, and the role of resident councils versus board representation. Two Life said it wants to remain within the CCRC framework, but expressed concern about proposals that would require multiple discrete care levels, impose deadlines on entrance-fee refunds, or require resident board seats. The commission then discussed possible recommendations. There was broad support for Senate Bill 478, which would require clearer disclosure of entrance-fee refund terms in a separate document for prospective residents. On refund timing, members were divided: some favored a one-year deadline or a deadline with waivers, while others opposed a fixed deadline because of financing risks and the potential impact on new development and current residents. Several members suggested keeping the status quo but adding better data collection and reporting on refund timing. On the CCRC definition and marketing, members debated whether the current statutory definition is too vague and whether the commission should recommend clearer standards or a certification-like process, while also noting resource limits for state oversight. Members also discussed the Age CCRC Consumer Guide, with general agreement that it should be updated and made more useful to consumers, possibly with clearer questions to ask and more information about facilities, though some cautioned against adding subjective financial-risk statements that would be hard to administer. On resident representation, several commissioners strongly supported requiring resident voting members on boards, while providers argued that strong resident associations and regular meetings with boards may be preferable and that communities should retain flexibility. The meeting ended with a request for written comments by July 11, draft recommendations to be circulated July 18, and a possible final meeting on July 21, with the commission aiming to finish by August 1.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, what will people have to pay for that surcharge? And who will pay it?
• There's co-pays that could kick in.
• The rich people pay taxes. They're allowed to benefit too.
• They will tell them, you've paying an employee below the floor of the pay, and— It.
• They will tell them you've paying an employee below the floor of the pay, and we're not going to pay

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And when you look at this bill, we're trying to get in front of that.
• When you look at this bill, we're trying to get in front of that.
• Senator Cook, Madam Chair, do you not usually have to pay up front for urgent care, too?
• I think you normally have to pay up front for urgent care.
• And I think we're mostly talking about outpatient stuff, but in urgent care, you've got to pay up front

Bills: SB227, SB269, SB407, SB463, SB527, SB547, SB1283, SB1380, SB1383, SB1511, SB1640, SB1784, SB2069

Keywords: school funding, education reform, state budget, property taxes, equity in education, healthcare policy, vaccines, exemptions, religious beliefs, public health, workplace violence, healthcare facilities, definition expansion, safety regulations, health and safety code, health insurance, anesthesia, pediatric dental services, coverage, medical necessity

Summary: The Senate Committee on Health and Human Services met with several members initially absent, then later established a quorum. The committee heard multiple bills, with most testimony focusing on access to care, insurance practices, senior safety, and health care worker protections. Several bills were laid out with committee substitutes, and public testimony was limited to two minutes per witness. Most bills were left pending after testimony, with no final votes taken in the portion provided. Senate Bill 2069 would create a work group to study the feasibility of a statewide acute psychiatric bed registry; the substitute shifts appointment authority to the Health and Human Services Commissioner and extends reporting and sunset dates. Senate Bill 463 would expand workplace violence protections to additional hospice, home and community support, intermediate care, and state-supported living center settings. Senate Bill 1283 would require background checks and transparency measures for senior retirement communities after testimony about the Dallas-area serial killings of elderly residents. Senate Bill 1784 would require 60 days’ written notice before medical debt is sent to collections. Senate Bill 527 would require medical insurance coverage for general anesthesia for medically necessary pediatric dental procedures for children under 13 with qualifying conditions; pediatric dentists testified that denials delay needed care. A major portion of the meeting centered on prior authorization. Senate Bill 1380 would eliminate prior authorization for a broad list of services, including emergency, primary, mental health, substance use, chemotherapy, preventive, pediatric hospice, and certain chronic-condition care. Physicians and hospice advocates supported the bill, describing delays, administrative burden, and patient harm, while health plans opposed blanket exemptions and argued prior authorization helps prevent unnecessary care and control costs. Relatedly, Senate Bill 547 would require insurers to report gold-card prior authorization exemptions to TDI and create a centralized database and annual report; TMA supported better tracking, while health plans warned of duplicative reporting and administrative cost. Senate Bill 407 would require health care facilities to honor conscience- and religion-based vaccine exemptions for employees, with testimony from a physician and vaccine-choice advocate supporting the bill. The committee also heard Senate Bill 1383, which would regulate senior living referral agencies, allow more flexible compensation structures, and add disclosure and consumer protections; an out-of-state referral company and A Place for Mom supported it. Senate Bill 1511 would allow freestanding emergency centers to provide outpatient services in addition to emergency care, with consumer protections such as estimates, limits on facility fees, and restrictions on balance billing. The chair repeatedly announced that bills were being left pending after testimony, and no final committee action or recorded votes were taken in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The taxes I pay on two ag parcels enjoy the lowest tax burden in our state, along with the additional
• The taxes I pay on two ag parcels enjoy the lowest tax burden in our state, along with the additional
• to clean up taxpayers also currently pay to clean up and<00:24:58.440> mitigate<00:24:59.159>
• I mean, it's not the custom of this body to do that, but you're certainly welcome to come in front of
• I mean, it's not the custom of this body to do that, but you're certainly welcome to come in front of

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So you said that there was that you pay three or four dollars to come get in. Does every rider pay?
• So you said that there was that you pay three or four dollars to come get in. Does every rider pay?
• I don't normally pay attention.
• in front of you.
• And then why does the state have to pay for it?

Bills: SB1059, SB1209, SB1273, SB1332, SB1452, SB1456, SB1549, SB1552, SB1818, SB1826, SB1827

Keywords: appropriation, Department of Transportation, right turn lane, traffic improvement, infrastructure funding, nonoperating identification, homeless exemption, veterans, emancipated minors, Arizona Department of Transportation, transportation, infrastructure, pavement rehabilitation, funding, Arizona, SB1332, light rail, light rail expansion, Maricopa County, Phoenix

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 1273, which would appropriate $14 million in FY 2027 for pavement rehabilitation of Olga Frontage Road between Bowie and San Simon. Members asked about the project length and whether it was on the rural transportation priority list. The bill was moved and passed out of committee on a 3-2 vote with a due pass recommendation. Senate Bill 1452, as amended, would create a cargo theft task force in the Attorney General’s office and require regular meetings, investigations, and reporting. Testimony from the Arizona Trucking Association described cargo theft as a growing, sophisticated crime and said the task force would help coordinate law enforcement and use Consumer Fraud Protection Fund dollars rather than the general fund. Members discussed the fund balance, possible costs, and whether the AG’s office had capacity; the committee adopted the amendment and then approved the bill 5-0 with a do pass recommendation. The committee then took up Senate Bill 1332, which orders a study of light rail expansion in Maricopa County by the Auditor General and an independent transportation research entity. Supporters, including local business owners, argued the study was needed before further expansion, while opponents said light rail already had extensive study, strong ridership, and local voter approval, and that the state should not override local decisions. After extensive debate and public testimony, the bill passed 4-3 with a do pass recommendation. Finally, Senate Bill 1059, one of several rural transportation appropriation bills discussed by Senator Wendy Rogers and Representative Blackman, would fund an additional right-turn lane at State Route 87 and State Route 260. The sponsors described it as a safety and congestion issue for Payson and surrounding rural communities, and members discussed broader rural road needs and funding. The committee approved SB 1059 unanimously, 7-0, with a due pass recommendation. The transcript also included extended discussion of Senate Bill 1209, which would waive non-operating ID fees for unhoused people and homeless shelter residents, but the committee had not yet finished action on that bill in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• They aren't going to pay this. Who's going to pay this?
• <00:32:19.760> Who's They aren't going to pay this. Who's They aren't going to pay this.
• Who's going<00:32:20.159> to<00:32:20.240> pay going to pay going to pay this?
• also pay into school referenda?
• front of them if you want to look it up. front of them if you want to look it up.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We've got a lot of work in front of us.
• Democrats a lot of work in front of us.
• Motans are paying household budgets.
• A very able to pay their rent.
• We're sources uh that will pay for it.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:08:14.440> Arch When the University of Texas pays Arch When the University of Texas pays
• That's not pay one player $6 million.
• paying for whoever doing whatever. paying for whoever doing whatever.
• <00:10:16.800> $6 like we're not going to be paying $6 like we're not going to be paying $6
• So we don't pay them >> Oh, right.

Bills: SB3263, SB3261

Keywords: student-athletes, name image likeness, NIL, compensation, transparency, University of Hawaii, Title IX, funding, protections, athlete agents, student athletes, endorsement contracts, professional representation, registration requirements, sports law, 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint committees heard testimony on Senate Bill 3263, which would create a state-supported endowment for University of Hawaii athletics NIL (name, image, and likeness) funding. University of Hawaii Athletics Director Matt Eliott supported the bill, saying NIL requires both immediate funding and a longer-term sustainable solution. He asked for several changes: lowering the initial endowment target from $10 million to $2 million so the fund could start sooner, allowing NIL reporting by team rather than by individual student-athlete, and clarifying that athletes may choose whether to use an agent, while still allowing certified agents or a parent/guardian if desired. Committee members raised concerns about using taxpayer dollars for athlete compensation, the burden on a small-state budget, and whether the university could realistically raise the required matching funds. Several senators questioned whether the university had a concrete fundraising plan and whether the endowment would meaningfully help UH compete with larger programs. Eliott said UH is already fundraising privately for current NIL obligations, had raised more than $1.6 million toward a $3 million annual goal, and would continue fundraising for both short-term needs and the endowment match. He also said the university is not trying to compete with Power Five schools on the same scale, but to be successful at its own conference level. Members also discussed transparency and privacy, with some senators arguing that if state money is used, the public should know how it is spent, while Eliott said individual student-athlete NIL information should remain private and team-level reporting would be preferable. He confirmed international student-athletes are eligible for NIL and said about 60 to 70 UH athletes are currently participating, with more than 100 expected next year. The discussion also touched on UH’s Mountain West media rights and local TV rights, with Eliott explaining that the conference distribution is expected to remain around $3.5 million and that local TV rights would be negotiated separately. No vote or final action was taken during the portion of the hearing provided.