Transcript Highlights:

• We have the Program Evaluation Division.
• <00:12:19.720> those related to our program evaluations those related to our program evaluations
• of the focus of the program evaluation of the focus of the program evaluation Division<00:12:32.040
• <00:14:47.079> and which we conduct program evaluations and which we conduct program evaluations
• <01:31:57.320> tomorrow second program evaluation tomorrow second program evaluation tomorrow

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee first heard Senate File 563, a bill to change the board makeup of the Northern Koochiching Area Sanitary District. Senator Hild said the proposal had been heard the previous year and had broad support from local officials and stakeholders. Cali Briggs, the district’s executive director, explained that the board structure no longer reflected current populations and sewer service patterns: International Falls now holds six of eight seats after earlier consolidations, while East Koochiching has grown through sewer expansions and should receive additional representation. The bill would reduce the board to seven members, with International Falls having three seats, East Koochiching two, Rainier one, and one at-large member chosen by the board. The committee raised no substantive objections, and Senator Gustafson moved the bill to pass and go to general orders; the motion prevailed. Members then briefly joked about the topic and moved on to an overview from the Office of the Legislative Auditor. Legislative Auditor Judy Randall described the office as a nonpartisan legislative branch agency serving both chambers, with a mission of strengthening oversight, promoting accountability, and producing objective, useful reports. She outlined the office’s structure, including financial audits, program evaluations, and a growing special reviews unit, and explained the Legislative Audit Commission’s role in appointing the auditor and selecting program evaluation topics. Randall also emphasized the office’s broad access to records and data, its independence, and its responsibility to protect nonpublic information. Randall answered questions about the office’s authority over entities such as the University of Minnesota, explaining that OLA has audit authority there but often relies on the university’s internal audit function and can also conduct special reviews and program evaluations. She noted that public employees are required to cooperate and that subpoenas are available if needed, though the office prefers to maintain cooperative relationships. Special Reviews Director Katherine Tyson then described how her unit handles complaints and allegations involving misuse of public funds, data, or noncompliance with law, including preliminary assessments, communications with complainants and agencies, and deeper reviews when warranted. She said allegations and reports have increased steadily, with 481 received from 2020 through 2024 and nearly 10 per week on average last year, contributing to a heavier workload for her small team.

Transcript Highlights:

• It clarifies the credentials of a member of the solid waste site evaluation committee to ensure
• language from the energy site evaluation language from the energy site evaluation committee<00:36
• And finally, it clarifies that the solid waste site evaluation committee can only issue a certificate
• it would seem to me that the evaluation it would seem to me that on<00:41:14.960> page<00:41:
• evaluation procedure. Same words. evaluation procedure. Same words.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Plan Valuation Report presented by Mitch DeCamp, then have a presentation on the 2025 actuarial evaluation
• We will have a presentation on the 2025 actuarial evaluation report from the state actuary, possible
• The state actuary's office is required to complete an actuarial evaluation of the supplemental benefit
• So council members heard earlier about the evaluation report that OSA conducted.
• Council members heard earlier about the evaluation report that OSA conducted.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Another action is currently when a president is evaluated by the board of regents, that's done in public
• What they would like to do, and the language in the sub says, is that the preliminary evaluation of a
• president by the board will be done in a closed session, and then the final evaluation will be done
• sub says that the preliminary evaluation sub says that the preliminary evaluation of<00:08:08.720
• will be done public in a evaluation will be done public in a public<00:08:14.800> meeting<00:

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Postsecondary Education met with a quorum and first heard House Bill 266, which would add audiology and speech-language pathology to the Kentucky Health Care Workforce Investment Fund as eligible credentials. Sponsor Representative Griffy and Dr. Kelly Ellis of Eastern Kentucky University testified that both professions are essential health care services, require advanced education and licensure, and face shortages, especially in rural areas. The bill passed favorably without opposition. The committee then took up House Bill 379, a cleanup and policy bill for postsecondary education. As amended by a primary House substitute, it would exempt mandatory orientation and training for governing board members from open meetings requirements if no action is taken, allow preliminary university president evaluations to occur in closed session while final evaluations remain public, designate Northern Kentucky University as the permanent home of the Kentucky Center for Mathematics, and establish a process for collecting enrollment-related debt through universities and the Kentucky Revenue Cabinet. The substitute also removed provisions related to student body presidents and the Commonwealth Education Continuum. Representative Baker and guests from NKU and the Council on Postsecondary Education said the changes were recommended by universities and CPE, noted that NKU has long hosted the Kentucky Center for Mathematics, and explained that no other institution has sought the role. Members asked about the center’s work, and supporters described it as a statewide organization that improves math education and teacher training. House Bill 379, as amended, passed with favorable expression and was reported to the House floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• auditor for the program evaluation auditor for the program evaluation division<00:37:13.880>
• Okay, moving now to the program evaluation division.
• Okay, moving now to the program evaluation division.
• do your reports but on the evaluation do your reports but on the evaluation piece<00:57:21.200> that
• would you do would you do a evaluation would you do would you do a evaluation piece<00:57:34.079

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met on January 16, 2025, for an organizational and informational session. Members and staff introduced themselves, and Chair Jim Nash reviewed committee expectations, including that nonpartisan staff are to be used for factual information rather than political arguments. He also noted the committee rules were a blend of prior chairs’ rules and would be posted without a vote. Helen Roberts of House Fiscal gave a high-level overview of the committee’s jurisdiction and budget structure. She explained that the State Government Finance Committee oversees funding for major administrative agencies, the legislature, constitutional offices, and several boards, councils, and commissions. She emphasized that the committee’s general fund base for fiscal years 2026-27 is about $1.31 billion, less than 2% of the state general fund, and that the largest pieces are the Department of Revenue, the legislature, and pension aids. She also described how all-funds presentations differ from general fund views, highlighting internal service funds such as Minnesota IT Services, Department of Administration services, and other chargeback or reimbursement arrangements. Members asked questions about House and Senate budgets, debt service related to the Capitol Area building project and move costs, and how Minnesota IT Services is funded through fee-for-service chargebacks. Colby Sullivan of House Research then summarized a memo in the packet that outlines the entities within the committee’s jurisdiction and the constitutional and statutory provisions governing them. He pointed members to the memo as a reference and noted that the committee also has jurisdiction over the Legislative Coordinating Commission, the legislative auditor, the legislative reference library, the reviser of statutes, the Secretary of State’s budget and certain duties, and three gambling-related agencies, though gambling policy itself is generally handled by another committee. He offered to help members with bill drafting and amendments and to provide a linked electronic version of the memo. The Office of the Legislative Auditor then began an overview of its work. Legislative Auditor Judy Randall explained that the office is nonpartisan, serves all 201 legislators, and provides oversight through financial audits, program evaluations, and special reviews focused on state funds. She distinguished the Legislative Auditor from the State Auditor, noting that the State Auditor is an elected constitutional officer who focuses on county and local government funds. Randall said the office would also present a deep dive into its November performance audit of the Minnesota State Lottery. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• It also allows us to evaluate those programs, right?
• We're going to continue to evaluate that. We've spoken to the department.
• A question: how do we evaluate innovation zones right now? Mr.
• success. evaluate success.
• it. not working if we haven't chosen the right measures to evaluate it.

Transcript Highlights:

• Oversight and evaluation, I think that's really an important piece to talk about.
• We do this through continued assessment, data collection, and evaluation.
• Ryan Tolman, our program evaluator, and Dr. Josh Jacob from LFC.
• We are program evaluators here with the LFC.
• One thing we can all agree on is that Program evaluation is important.

Transcript Highlights:

• Research shows clearly that most voters do not have the knowledge that would help evaluate proposals
• coordinates peer review for legislative program evaluation and performance audit offices.
• I will be focusing on financial audit and program evaluation, or performance audit.
• I have not seen that attempt at a level of performance evaluation happen in any of the states.
• If there is more than one threat, they must be evaluated both individually and in the aggregate.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The subcommittee hearing focused on whether the Office of the State Auditor may constitutionally audit the Massachusetts Legislature under Chapter 250 of the Acts of 2024 and what such an audit could include under generally accepted government auditing standards. Chair Cindy Friedman opened by explaining the background: voters approved Ballot Question 1 in November 2024, the law took effect in January 2025, and the Auditor then initiated audits of both chambers. The chair said the subcommittee was seeking expert testimony because the proposed audit scope, constitutionality, and possible bias concerns remained unresolved. Public testimony was invited, but no members of the public pre-registered; written testimony remained open for a short period after the hearing. The hearing then proceeded with invited experts on constitutional law/state government and auditing-related issues. Professor Lawrence Friedman testified that the ballot initiative’s approval by the Attorney General and by voters did not resolve constitutional questions, and he argued Chapter 250 violates the Massachusetts Constitution. He said the Legislature has constitutional authority to set its own rules and manage its proceedings, and that an executive-branch audit would intrude on legislative deliberation, speech and debate protections, and separation of powers. He also warned that even audits of supposedly administrative matters could become a vehicle for repeated document demands and litigation that would indirectly burden legislative functioning. In questioning, senators pressed him on the line between administrative and deliberative functions, the role of the Attorney General versus the courts, the possibility of retroactive audit scope, and whether prior legislative consent to audits mattered; he said prior consent would not bind future legislatures and that constitutionality is ultimately for the courts. Professor Ray La Raja also opposed the audit, framing it as a threat to institutional independence and representative democracy. He argued that allowing an executive-branch official to audit the Legislature without consent would upset separation of powers, chill internal debate, and create a precedent for broader executive intrusion. He said voters often support “transparency” reforms without fully appreciating institutional consequences, and that legislatures should defend their autonomy, especially amid what he described as broader executive overreach nationally. Senators asked about chilling effects, the practical distinction between administrative and core legislative functions, and whether the courts or the Legislature should resolve the issue; he said the courts would ultimately adjudicate disputes, but the Legislature should not waive its constitutional authority lightly. Jean Kempthorne took the opposite view, arguing the audit is permissible and should proceed. She said the state auditor is a constitutional officer accountable directly to the people, that the audit power can be expanded by statute, and that separation of powers does not require watertight compartments. She contended the audit would not displace core legislative powers because the auditor can only evaluate operations, report findings, and make recommendations. She also argued the Legislature itself already conducts audits of other branches, so it is inconsistent to claim an audit of the Legislature is unconstitutional. In response to senators’ questions, she said there are guardrails against truly intrusive requests, but that the administrative-versus-legislative distinction is not a workable bright line; she suggested disputes should be handled case by case, with objections, negotiation, or litigation if specific requests go too far. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• document and maintain the factors that were evaluated for each applicant.
• Again, evaluate the organization, identify.
• And every step of that progress will have to be evaluated: Is it working?
• My job is to go out and evaluate, review, assess, verify.
• We're always evaluating our Century Code, our Chapter 54-10.

Summary: The committee was called to order, the Pledge of Allegiance and prayer were offered, and the minutes from the previous meeting were approved. Members then received a memo summarizing major audit items and began hearing audit presentations from the State Auditor’s Office and private auditors on a range of state agencies and organizations. Several audits were reported as clean, including the Bank of North Dakota, the North Dakota Guaranteed Student Loan Program, the Office of the Governor, the Office of the State Treasurer, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Transportation’s flexible transportation fund, Lake Region State College, and the Department of Environmental Quality. The North Dakota Stockmen’s Association also received an unmodified opinion, though repeat findings were noted for limited segregation of duties and financial statement preparation due to its small staff. The Council on the Arts audit found two findings: payroll charged to federal awards without adequate timekeeping records, and unallowable expenditures from a restricted cultural endowment fund. The Department of Public Instruction audit identified unsupported scholarship applications in the paraprofessional-to-teacher program, though additional testing showed the funds were used for their intended purpose. The most extensive discussion centered on the North Dakota Racing Commission audit, which identified four findings: overspending the promotion fund’s 25% operating limit, grant conditions not being met, improper Breeders Fund awards, and improper procurement for advertising services. Racing Commission director Bruce Johnson acknowledged complacency and weak controls, said the agency would tighten procedures, and explained that the commission had since worked with procurement and would follow the rules more closely. Auditors also explained that the commission would now be audited every two years because of the findings. Another major discussion involved the University of North Dakota School of Law, where auditors found a lack of documentation supporting admissions decisions for post-baccalaureate programs. UND officials said they remain in good standing with the American Bar Association but agreed better documentation and tools are needed; the committee pressed for more transparency and follow-up on admissions criteria. The committee also received an update on Dakota College at Bottineau, where Minot State University reported that bank reconciliations had been brought current after a significant backlog and would now be maintained through shared services. Members requested a written follow-up report on the issues and corrective actions. Finally, the North Dakota Fair Association explained that its foundation has been dissolved and remaining funds were transferred to another nonprofit for continued support of the state fair, and the Department of Public Instruction provided an update on school meal debt, saying the reported amount was about $1.1 million from a partial district survey and that debt remains a local issue, though it could be revisited if school meal funding changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Speaker, this bill changes the judicial evaluation process, making evaluations public.
• Speaker, this bill changes the judicial evaluation process, making evaluations public.
• evaluations evaluations at<04:29:31.920> the<04:29:32.080> hearing<04:29:32.399> judge
• What happens is evaluated last year.
• :35:01.199> were<04:35:01.439> their were evaluated and here were their were evaluated

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We do have an evaluator with our program that evaluates all of our programs.
• We do have an evaluator with our program that evaluates all of our programs.
• Those reports are analyzed sent to our evaluator. We also conduct annual site visits.
• It amends an existing contract for evaluation support for the statewide stroke program.
• It mends an existing contract for evaluation support for the statewide stroke program.

Summary: The committee considered and approved several temporary appropriation requests in Section B, including spending authority for the Court of Appeals to pay appointed counsel in criminal appeals, Commerce/Aeronautics airport and aviation grants, and Insurance Department items for workers’ compensation benefits and premium tax refunds. It also approved ARPA-related requests in Section C to return unused federal funds from DHS aging, mental health, substance abuse, and Older Americans Act grants. In Section D, the committee reviewed and approved Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act requests, including Agriculture grants for wildfire preparedness and forestry capacity, a large Commerce broadband BEAD request, environmental recycling-related reallocations, and Oil and Gas Commission grants for facility repairs and sample preservation. Members questioned the broadband program’s audit process and performance safeguards; the State Broadband Director said the funds are federal, subject to audits, and payments are released only after engineering certification of completed work. The committee also approved DHS reallocations in Section E, including major transfers within Medical Services from hospital medical appropriations to private and public nursing home lines, as well as transfers for children and family services, developmental disabilities, and youth services. The committee then reviewed cash fund requests, miscellaneous federal grants, pay plan and performance fund transfers, methods of finance, and a large set of contracts. A Northwest Arkansas Community College official explained storm-damage repairs and insurance settlement issues, and DHS explained its hospital medical transfer was moving excess appropriation rather than cash. Members also questioned several UAPB tobacco prevention subgrants, especially arts-based outreach, and asked for more data on effectiveness; the committee later voted to expunge and re-refer the J-2 item for further review at a later ALC meeting. Additional discussion covered a DEQ grant to Free Geek of Arkansas for e-waste recycling, a UAPB tobacco program, and various contracts for universities, DHS services, corrections, and public safety. The meeting ended with reports filed for information and a brief member comment thanking others for concern after a tornado in Stone County; no one was injured.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill also specifies performance evaluation criteria for certified school counselors.
• with the Florida School Counseling... ...committee process that aligns school counselor evaluations
• On the practice side, having a proper school counselor evaluation is essential.
• The bill also specifies performance evaluation criteria for certified school counselors.
• On the practice side, having a proper school counselor evaluation is essential.

Summary: The Education and Employment Committee heard and voted on several education-related bills. HB 129 on Florida Virtual School was presented as a cleanup bill responding to audit-related statutory updates; it would remove priority language, allow all Florida students and eligible overseas military dependents access, clarify teacher employment/retirement status, permit local schools to administer required exams, and authorize direct support organizations. The bill drew support from Seminole State College and Florida Virtual School and was reported favorably 15-0. HB 423 on student elopement, sponsored by Reps. Eskamani and Tramont, would require schools to establish safety teams and procedures to prevent and respond to elopement by students with autism or similar needs. Testimony from the Autism Society of Greater Orlando and a student advocate emphasized safety risks and the need for clear school protocols. Members spoke strongly in support, and the bill passed unanimously 16-0. CS for CS for HB 753 on school counselors removed two certification barriers, kept the master’s degree requirement, and aligned evaluations with Florida school counseling standards; school counselor groups and several members argued it would help address counselor shortages and workload issues. It also passed unanimously 16-0. The committee also approved CS for CS for HB 1253, which would let school-employed coaches use up to $15,000 per team per year of personal funds to support student-athletes with items like food, transportation, therapy, and rehabilitation, with an amendment requiring written parental consent. Several members raised concerns about liability, fairness, and guardrails, but the bill passed 17-0. PCS for CS for HB 833 on private school facilities would allow small private schools of 150 students or fewer to locate in commercial or mixed-use zoning without rezoning and to use certain existing buildings if fire and life-safety standards are met; members discussed traffic, school zones, and proximity to dispensaries, and it passed 15-0. PCS for CS for HB 1325 on the Linking Industry to Nursing Education Fund clarified matching contributions, allowed use of funds for expansion or modernization of existing space, and permitted two-year awards; it passed 16-0. Finally, CS for HB 1437 on conversion charter schools created dispute-resolution options over facility maintenance and, via amendment, allowed capital outlay funding if the charter assumes full maintenance responsibility; despite some opposition, it passed 13-3. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• into these topics, I think it will yield great dialogue and certainly be beneficial for us as we evaluate
• The first audit, which we issued in December 2024, evaluated the... ...special audits.
• This audit evaluated expenditures from the school safety interoperability fund, which I'll refer to as
• It also evaluated whether... Fund monies were spent for statutorily authorized purposes.
• The following slides will present graphics that show the statutory requirements we evaluated, and one

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee opened with remarks about moving JLAC to a more frequent monthly schedule and spending more time on each audit. Members also recognized Melanie Chesney of the Auditor General’s office for 32 years of service, with several members praising her work and her role in school safety and other audits. The meeting then turned to the JLAC-directed Arizona School Safety Special Audit on interoperable communication systems, with the Auditor General’s office presenting the December 2025 report. The audit found that the state had allocated nearly $26 million to interoperable communication efforts, but implementation varied widely. Auditors said all 14 law enforcement agencies used the money for interoperable systems, yet four agencies allowed private or tribal schools to participate contrary to statute, and several agencies failed to submit required expenditure reports. The report also found procurement problems: nine of 14 agencies did not follow procurement requirements or lacked documentation, many contracts lacked accountability provisions, and some agencies had not planned for ongoing costs. The audit estimated ongoing annual costs for an average rural county could range from about $16,000 to $382,000, and recommended that agencies document costs, follow procurement rules, monitor vendors, and plan for future funding. It also recommended the legislature clarify whether non-public schools may participate and revisit statutory system requirements that were vague or inconsistently interpreted. Members questioned the Auditor General about vendor licensing, whether systems could be built in-house, why some functions were not configured, and whether the systems were truly usable in emergencies. The presentation explained that some systems met requirements only in part, that Mutualink had a per-user licensing model affecting access to secure text and file sharing, and that some schools were unwilling or unable to install apps or keep devices logged in. The committee also discussed the difference between the separate school safety grant program administered by ADE and this interoperability fund, and several members expressed frustration with sole-source contracting and weak documentation. In the final portion of the presentation, auditors said only two of eight observed systems demonstrated all five critical emergency functions, while four agency systems could not be tested because they were reportedly not functioning. The committee then began hearing responses from county sheriffs, starting with the Arizona Sheriffs’ Association president, who emphasized county commitment to school safety and noted that some counties had implemented systems across multiple districts, including tribal and rural schools. No votes or formal actions were taken during the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• These are just requirements that they have to include in the evaluation.
• So it just seems like these are very arbitrary things to evaluate somebody on in that they could fall
• have to include in the eval evaluation have to include in the eval evaluation there's<00:20:45.840
• It's the agency position that there's certain things people are being evaluated on that can fall into
• The agency position is that there are certain things people are being evaluated on that can fall into

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened with routine business, including the Pledge of Allegiance, seating alternates, and approval of the minutes and consent calendar. Both were approved without opposition. The committee then moved to the regular calendar, beginning with Department of Environmental Services drinking water rules (2532). Staff noted that the final proposal deleted requirements that had been in the initial proposal, making the published notice technically inaccurate because it said there were no substantive changes. The agency responded that the requirements still exist in other rules, that regulated entities and the Water Council were notified, and that the public had notice through related hearings. After discussion about whether a new noticed hearing was needed, the committee approved the rule. The next item was Department of Administrative Services personnel rule 2510 on seniority and employee performance evaluation. Staff raised informational comments and one unclear comment about language that appeared to require a checkbox even though no form exists, and about evaluation categories that could overlap. The agency said the checkbox language should be removed, but defended the overlapping categories as part of a long-standing template used by agencies for the past 10 years. Members discussed whether the language was too ambiguous or could lead to inconsistent application, but the committee ultimately approved the rule with a condition striking the checkbox language in the affected sections. The committee then considered personnel rule 25109 on investigations, discipline, non-disciplinary communications, and non-disciplinary removal. Staff recommended clarifying language distinguishing license suspension from termination for cause, and questioned whether the sexual-harassment discipline language was too broad because the same conduct could fit multiple discipline levels. The agency agreed to add the suggested clarification for the license-suspension provision, but argued the sexual-harassment language should remain because another rule already provides the factors for determining the appropriate discipline and the agency needs discretion for fact-specific cases. The discussion included concerns about how non-verbal conduct might be treated, but the committee moved toward conditional approval with the agreed clarification and approval of the rest of the rule as written.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, what this bill does is if there's denial, then they have to go back and get a human to re-evaluate
• If it's approved, there will be no other evaluation of what the decision was.
• If it's approved, there re-evaluate it.
• of what the will be no other evaluation of what the decision<00:11:21.839> was.
• The one where the health department goes into the prison and evaluates the food situation that... >>

Bills: SB63, HB156, HB289, SB80, SB84, SB63, HB156, HB289, SB80, SB84

Keywords: immigration, law enforcement, fingerprints, DNA collection, illegal aliens, Alabama state law, out-of-state warrants, criminal procedure, extradition, Alabama Code, arrest authority, interstate cooperation, Marshall County, TVA, Tennessee Valley Authority, in-lieu-of-taxes, payments distribution, local legislation, school funding, education finance

Transcript Highlights:

• market analysis of available technology solutions that would best meet those requirements and also evaluate
• Which provided a detailed evaluation of the currency best platform.
• God solution, design and objectively evaluate vendors for solicitation and implementation.
• The Proviso directed us to evaluate electronic visit verification EV solution currently used by AHCA,
• Agency will be better equipped to evaluate under proposals effectively under discussions can shift from

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't think anyone argues with the idea that we want to evaluate these programs.
• I think this is the executive's attempt to say we're going to evaluate them, but we're going to evaluate
• And we're going to be evaluating the effectiveness of bilingual program models. You know.
• We will evaluate how funding structures affect access and quality.
• And then we want to also evaluate how PED is supporting that capacity.

Transcript Highlights:

• 00:09:21.120> read<00:09:21.360> the evaluation committee um, they read the evaluation
• So that's evaluated um or considered.
• highest and we keep the evaluators highest and we keep the evaluators focused<00:09:47.920> on
• <00:50:48.319> So<00:50:48.480> each<00:50:48.720> evaluation evaluation on
• So each evaluation evaluation on that.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Government Contract Committee met with a quorum, observed a moment of silence for Representative McCool after the death of his sister, and approved the April 14 minutes. The committee then reviewed a large agenda of contracts and amendments, beginning with a deferred Office of the Controller procurement involving broker services. Members questioned why a contract that had previously been handled for about $300,000 annually was now priced at about $1 million, and why the procurement was limited to one year. Office of the Controller staff said the prior vendor had held the work for more than 20 years, the work had previously been treated as not practical to bid, and the new RFP was intended to increase competition. They said the technical evaluation was scored before cost was considered, that past performance was not scored because it was seen as unreliable, and that AON received the highest technical score despite not being the lowest bidder. After discussion, the committee voted to take no action and let the contract proceed to the Finance Cabinet, with members noting continuing concerns about the pricing and process. The committee next considered a DCBS memorandum of agreement amendment for language services. DCBS representatives said the additional funding did not come from a new cut elsewhere, but from reduced spending on interpreter services because commonly used forms had been translated into other languages, freeing up funds for the contract. The committee approved the item unanimously. The final major item discussed was an initial contract for the Board of Hairdressers and Cosmetologists for legal services. Board staff said the board had been without a permanent general counsel since March 2024 and had relied on special and conflict counsel because of unusually heavy litigation, including 11 active cases, plus broader disciplinary and licensing changes tied to recent legislation and an oversight report. They said the contract was a not-to-exceed amount funded entirely by agency fees and that the board was currently running a surplus. Senator Thomas urged support, citing prior legislation and oversight findings about problems at the board and saying the contract was needed to help the board address ongoing litigation and corrective work. The committee approved the contract and then approved the remaining agenda items without objection, sending them forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• When they're evaluating projects for us, they're still being paid by the urban forestry program because
• the strategies that these. urban forestry our program to evaluate the strategies that these programs
• We're evaluating that right now and evaluating all options on how we can implement the regulations as
• We're evaluating that right now and evaluating all options on how we can implement the regulations as
• So we have folks going out there now doing trail logs and evaluating the roads and the buildings.

Summary: The subcommittee heard presentations on the administration’s Proposition 4 spending plans for extreme heat mitigation and outdoor access, then took up SB 54 implementation, SB 707 textile producer responsibility, and recovery needs related to the Los Angeles fires at state parks. For the extreme heat chapter, agencies described funding for the Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program, urban greening, urban forestry, fairground upgrades, and technical assistance for community-based climate programs. Witnesses emphasized that these are existing programs with strong demand, that technical assistance is important for reaching disadvantaged and tribal communities, and that the proposed funding would expand outreach and implementation capacity. Members asked for more detail on where funds have gone geographically, examples of successful projects, tree-planting totals, and how fairgrounds could better support fire staging and emergency preparedness. The LAO said the timing of the administration’s proposed funding generally made sense because the programs are already established, and no votes were taken. For outdoor access, State Parks, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources described funding for new parks in underserved communities, deferred maintenance, state lands access, and several new or pending programs. State Parks said the park development program would fund roughly 48 projects and that deferred maintenance funding would address high-priority health, safety, and access needs. Fish and Wildlife said its lands program would improve visitor amenities and access on properties that often lack basic facilities. The Natural Resources Agency also outlined three newer outdoor-access proposals: expanding recreation in disadvantaged communities, enhancing natural resource values and trail access, and a nature/climate/education facilities grant program. The LAO distinguished between existing programs, which are ready to move forward, and the newer proposals, where the Legislature may want more input before funds are allocated. Members also raised concerns about park police vacancies, the need to track outcomes for accessibility investments, and whether Prop. 4 could help with wildfire-related recovery at state parks. CalRecycle then presented on SB 54, the plastics and packaging producer responsibility law, and members pressed hard on the delay in regulations. CalRecycle said it has held workshops, formed an advisory committee, selected the producer responsibility organization, and completed required baseline and covered-material reports, but needs more time to address complex comments and novel features such as source reduction and eco-modulated fees. Members expressed frustration that a statutory deadline was missed and asked for a concrete timeline; CalRecycle said it expects regulations in place by 2026, ahead of the PRO’s January 1, 2027 plan deadline. Finance said the Beverage Container Recycling Fund is currently healthy enough to support short-term loans for implementation. The committee also reviewed SB 707, the textile EPR law, which would create the nation’s first textile producer responsibility program; staff said the proposal would add positions and loan authority, and members noted the statutory deadlines for PRO approval, needs assessment, and later regulations. The hearing ended with discussion of the January Los Angeles fires’ damage to Topanga State Park and Will Rogers State Historic Park, where State Parks described extensive losses, emergency response work, and ongoing damage assessment. Members asked about FEMA eligibility, state funding sources, and community engagement in rebuilding, and the department said it is still assessing costs and will work with the public on reimagining the parks.

Bills: SJR36, SJR34, SJR18, SCR9, SB616, SB565, SB384, SB140, SB262, SB370, SB372, SB495, SB627, SB764, SB842, SB971, SB767, SB480, SB1066, SB929, SB765, SB523, SB62, SB19, SB18, SB666, SB688, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB706, SB847, SB869, SB890, SB992, SB1145, SB494, SB290, SB766, SB11, SB10, SB13, SB263, SB412, SB20, SB441, SB442, SB1621, SCR13, SB569, SB314, SB25, SB293, SB914, SB260, SB1248, SB740, SB14, SJR34, SCR9, SB10, SB11, SB19, SB20, SB25, SB62, SB140, SB260, SB262, SB290, SB293, SB314, SB370, SB384, SB412, SB441, SB442, SB480, SB494, SB495, SB616, SB627, SB706, SB707, SB764, SB767, SB869, SB890, SB929, SB992, SB1145, SB1621, SJR34, SB140, SB262, SB370, SB480, SB627, SB764, SB767, SR224, SB1626, SB1627, SB1628, SB1629, SB1630, SB1631, SB1632, SB1633, SB1634, SB1635, SB1636, SB1637, SB1638, SB1639, SB1640, SB1641, SB1642, SB1643, SB1644, SB1645, SB1646, SB1647, SB1648, SB1649, SB1650, SB1651, SB1652, SB1653, SB1654, SB1656, SB1657, SB1658, SB1659, SB1660, SB1661, SB1662, SB1663, SB1664, SB1665, SB1666, SB1667, SB1668, SB1669, SB1670, SB1671, SB1672, SB1673, SB1674, SB1675, SB1676, SB1677, SB1678, SB1679, SB1680, SB1681, SB1682, SB1683, SB1684, SB1685, SB1686, SB1687, SB1688, SB1689, SB1690, SB1691, SB1692, SB1693, SB1694, SB1695, SB1696, SB1697, SB1698, SB1699, SB1700, SB1626, SB1627, SB1628, SB1629, SB1630, SB1631, SB1632, SB1633, SB1634, SB1635, SB1636, SB1637, SB1638, SB1639, SB1640, SB1641, SB1642, SB1643, SB1644, SB1645, SB1646, SB1647, SB1648, SB1649, SB1650, SB1651, SB1652, SB1653, SB1654, SB1656, SB1657, SB1658, SB1659, SB1660, SB1661, SB1662, SB1663, SB1664, SB1665, SB1666, SB1667, SB1668, SB1669, SB1670, SB1671, SB1672, SB1673, SB1674, SB1675, SB1676, SB1677, SB1678, SB1679, SB1680, SB1681, SB1682, SB1683, SB1684, SB1685, SB1686, SB1687, SB1688, SB1689, SB1690, SB1691, SB1692, SB1693, SB1694, SB1695, SB1696, SB1697, SB1698, SB1699, SB1700

Keywords: parental rights, parents, children, custody, care and control, upbringing, family law, constitutional amendment, Texas Constitution, child welfare, education policy, medical decisions, parental authority, primary decision makers, family autonomy, capital gains, taxation, state revenue, individual investment, Supreme Court