Transcript Highlights:

• SREB HAS PRODUCED CHECK LISTS AND GUIDANCE TO HELP DISTRICTS EVALUATE THESE RISKS SYSTEMICALLY.
• SECUREMENT MUST ALSO EVALUATE PRIVACY AND SECURITY PROTECTIONS THROUGH DETAILED DUE DILIGENCE.
• IN THEIR EVALUATIONS? >> Chair: MR.
• THROUGH THE PROCESS EVALUATION. NOWADAYS EVERYONE CLAIMS EVERYTHING THEY DO AS AI IS BAD.
• THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER AVENUE WHEN WE ARE EVALUATING THE ROI IS RETENTION.

Transcript Highlights:

• But for example on the complaint data, we do do an evaluation of trends.
• And can we expect that the CPUC will publish an analysis or report to evaluate the program, and will
• There's a couple of key components in the program that will provide an analysis and evaluation.
• Of the firm escapes me, but they will be an evaluator of this driver's assistance program and will be
• The CPUC is administering the process to evaluate how or when the TRIP data could be released.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The federal VA has a process that they can evaluate the history of an individual to determine if they
• But the first step for our recommendation is to pre-file for burial so that the NCA can evaluate the
• eligibility of individuals. has a process that they can evaluate the has a process that they can evaluate
• We are then in a position to evaluate those documents and make a determination on eligibility, either
• evaluate those in a position to evaluate those documents<00:14:25.120> and<00:14:25.760> uh

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• It's an evaluation.
• <00:48:35.359> legal evaluation, and an evaluation in legal evaluation, and an evaluation
• It's an evaluation. treatment record. It's an evaluation.
• But the evaluation, not treatment.
• <00:49:43.359> and an independent medical evaluation and an independent medical evaluation

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission met on November 18, 2025, approved the October 14 minutes, and then took up five motions in ethics matters 24LEC3 and 24LEC6. Those motions included a renewed motion to dismiss and motion to quash by Representative Daniel Gberg, a renewed motion to compel/sanctions and continuance request by Mr. Jenkins, and competing motions in limine concerning evidence and redaction of deposition transcripts. Vice Chair Mike Schaw was appointed hearing officer for the motion practice, and the commission agreed to hear the motions one at a time in open session. Representative Chris Lily joined later by Zoom. Counsel for Representative Gberg argued the remaining allegations were minor, that the commission lacked key exculpatory materials such as an alleged LRC report, policies, procedures, and training materials, and that the record did not support the ethics charges. She also argued the case had been broadened by extraneous allegations and that the respondent had been unfairly prejudiced. Enforcement counsel responded that he had produced all materials in his possession, that any LRC materials were not in the commission’s custody, and that the commission’s probable-cause findings were based on sworn testimony and affidavits already in the record. He argued the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment should be denied because genuine issues of material fact remained and the commission had already found probable cause on three ethics violations. Commission members questioned both sides about the alleged LRC report and whether it was part of the commission’s record. The chair stated the commission had not relied on any LRC report and had not withheld anything, while another member emphasized that the proceeding concerned alleged violations of the ethics code, not LRC sexual-harassment policy. A commissioner also noted the unusual structure of the proceeding and questioned whether the complaints, taken as true, stated a basis for dismissal. The transcript ends during continued discussion of the standard for dismissal and summary judgment, with no final ruling on the motions captured in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've had this program evaluated by WestEd over a number of years.
• The first CSAC evaluation is The first CSAC evaluation is in December of this year, so additional funding
• What are the assessment or evaluation requirements for the program?
• For finance, there's currently not any assessment or evaluation for this at this time.
• What would the LAO recommend in terms of an evaluation for a program like this?

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance heard an extended discussion on state efforts to recruit, prepare, and retain teachers, with a focus on whether current programs are sustainable and well targeted. Testimony from the Learning Policy Institute, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the Department of Education, and the Legislative Analyst’s Office described persistent shortages, especially in special education, math, science, bilingual education, and high-need schools. Speakers emphasized that residency programs, Golden State Teacher Grants, National Board incentives, classified employee pathways, and undergraduate teacher pipelines have helped increase preparation and retention, but many of these efforts rely on one-time funding and lack long-term certainty. Committee members repeatedly raised concerns about the “leaky pipeline,” working conditions, the burden of student debt, and whether the state should simplify and institutionalize support for aspiring teachers rather than rely on a patchwork of grants. The agencies presented data showing continuing shortages and uneven distribution of fully credentialed teachers. CTC reported projected hiring needs of roughly 20,000 to 25,000 teachers annually, with the highest needs in self-contained classrooms, special education, and certain regions of the state. It also noted that emergency permits, waivers, and intern credentials remain high, and that teachers entering through those routes have higher turnover. LPI cited research showing residency-prepared teachers are more effective and more likely to stay, and argued that Golden State Teacher Grants attract candidates who might not otherwise enter teaching and help them complete preparation. CDE stressed that most new demand comes from attrition and urged support for multiple entry points, tuition assistance, and campus-based coursework. Several members also discussed the role of community college pathways, dual credentialing, and support for school leaders as part of retention. The LAO recommended rejecting the educator pipeline proposals under discussion, citing limited evidence of effectiveness and suggesting that any new spending should be more narrowly targeted to the highest-need schools and long-standing shortage subjects. The LAO also said that if the Legislature funds new programs this year, Proposition 98 would be preferable given the state’s fiscal condition. Committee members pushed back on the idea that declining enrollment or layoffs would solve shortages, noting that shortages and layoffs can coexist in different subject areas and regions. The discussion ended with agreement that staff would continue working with agencies on how to make teacher pipeline investments more consistent, coherent, and easier for candidates to navigate. The committee then turned to the Golden State Teacher Grant Program. Finance proposed $50 million in one-time General Fund support to extend the program for one additional year, while the LAO recommended rejecting the proposal because the first CSAC evaluation is not due until later in the year and because the funding would be non-Proposition 98. CSAC supported the extension, saying demand has been strong, over 20,000 aspiring educators have been served since 2021, and the agency had to pause applications after receiving more than 9,200 this year; it also said more than 2,500 candidates had already expressed interest for next year. Members asked how many students the new funding would serve, and CSAC estimated just under 5,000 awards at $10,000 each. The discussion also covered whether the grant could be moved into Proposition 98 and how the one-time nature of the funding affects confidence among prospective teachers.

Transcript Highlights:

• As a note, in our analysis, we did not evaluate which of these high- and moderate-high-risk sites are
• As a note, in our analysis, we did not evaluate which of these high- and moderate-high-risk sites are
• My name is Carolyn Cato, and next we will cover the results of the site evaluations we conducted.
• We found the agency lacked a systematic process to evaluate Community engagement process.
• Only two of the six sites evaluated had conducted evaluations of the community engagement activities.

Summary: The I-900 Subcommittee held a public hearing on the State Auditor’s performance audit, Community Engagement During Contaminated Site Cleanups. Auditors said Ecology directly conducts or supervises cleanup at only about 8% of active contaminated sites, while most sites are handled by third parties or have no cleanup plan yet. The audit found that Ecology generally met legal requirements at the sites it oversees, but community engagement varied, was not consistently tailored to local needs, and lacked a systematic “lessons learned” process. Auditors also found inconsistent coordination between Ecology and the Department of Health, and limited guidance for staff on when to collaborate. Tribal feedback was mixed: some tribes said engagement met their needs, while others wanted earlier and more tailored outreach. Committee members pressed the auditors on why many third-party-managed sites appeared to have little or no public involvement, and whether Ecology has broader authority to require public engagement and oversight. The auditors responded that their review focused on community engagement requirements, not the full cleanup permitting process, and said the gap they identified was the lack of required oversight for third-party engagement. Members also asked about tribal engagement, exposure scenarios, and the meaning of “active” and “planless” sites. Ecology officials said they agreed with many of the findings, were already taking steps to improve community research, lessons-learned reviews, tribal guidance, and coordination with Health, and had recently launched a public email notification system for site status changes. They also said some recommendations would require additional funding or staff resources. Public testimony supported stronger community engagement and more resources for Ecology. Washington Conservation Action said contaminated sites disproportionately affect communities of color and low-income communities, praised the audit for highlighting the need for better site-specific engagement, and urged full funding for MTCA-related work. The hearing ended with the chair inviting written comments and adjourning the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• whole sense of reality comes into question if we don't have the information we need to be able to evaluate
• the information we need to be<00:04:19.880> able<00:04:20.040> to<00:04:20.280> evaluate
• <00:04:20.840> what<00:04:20.959> we're<00:04:21.360> seeing be able to evaluate
• what we're seeing be able to evaluate what we're seeing you<00:04:22.520> mentioned<00:04:23.000
• <00:09:20.000> that can understand the evaluation that can understand the evaluation that

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• each of those evaluations.
• The two other programs that my husband and I evaluated—one was 35% higher.
• And then, again, that $1,000 per evaluation will add some more.
• So, and then there is a timeline associated with the evaluation.
• So, and then there is a timeline associated with the evaluation.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We also help with evaluation plans collecting and analyzing evaluation data as I tell programs along
• They also provide funding for the evaluation as you've heard.
• I was I said the word on the guardianship assistance evaluation.
• We wanted to program evaluation.
• And I think that the evaluation will speak to that.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

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

Summary: The committee heard a series of appropriation requests and contract reviews across multiple sections. In Section B, members approved temporary appropriations for the Court of Appeals, Commerce/Aeronautics, and Insurance-related payments and refunds. Section C ARPA requests from DHS were approved to return unused federal funds. Section D infrastructure-related appropriations, including wildfire preparedness, broadband BEAD funding, forestry support, recycling, and oil and gas sample preservation, were approved after questions about broadband audit controls and performance safeguards. Section E DHS reallocations were approved, including large transfers within Medical Services from hospital medical to private and public nursing home lines, along with smaller transfers for children and family services, developmental disabilities, and youth services; members asked about the source and purpose of the medical services transfer. Sections F and G were reviewed, covering cash fund requests, federal grants, and miscellaneous grants, including community college storm repairs, corrections commissary and maintenance, 911 enhancements, maternal health, disability determinations, state police equipment, digital newspaper archiving, and CDL data improvements. In Section H, the committee reviewed pay plan appropriations and performance fund transfers tied to the new Class and Comp pay plan. Section I reviewed three methods of finance for UA Little Rock, UAMS, and the University of Arkansas system. In Section J, the committee reviewed discretionary grants, including a $1.4 million HIV services grant and nine tobacco prevention subgrants through UAPB. Members questioned the effectiveness, metrics, and addresses of some tobacco-cessation arts-based grantees, especially Arts Absolutely Inc.; after discussion, Representative Kavanaugh moved to expunge the vote on J2 and refer it back for review at a later ALC meeting, and that motion passed. J3, a Department of Energy and Environment grant for propane safety training and e-waste recycling services, was then reviewed. The committee also reviewed contracts in Section K. K-1 ratified emergency management nuclear planning work performed during a transition between agencies. K-2 construction contracts included architectural and engineering services for corrections, National Park College signage, a Razorback Road parking facility, and UAMS cyclotron installation. K-3 intergovernmental contracts covered health, education, autism waiver, stroke, newborn screening, Medicaid evidence review, and radiation testing services. K-4 out-of-state contracts included staffing, IT, tobacco prevention, audit, marketing, planetarium, recruitment, and janitorial services; Senator Irvin noted one contract appeared to belong in the out-of-state list rather than intergovernmental. K-5 in-state contracts covered staffing, cleaning, re-entry and treatment services, foster care and disability services, hearing officers, asbestos abatement, campus IT support, and janitorial work. The meeting ended after a brief personal update from Senator Irvin about tornado damage in Stone County and thanks to members for their concern, followed by adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's the evaluation and the funding period to use that.
• just want to make sure that that are, as is impressed upon here is that each year is going to be evaluated
• States proposed evaluate each state will is proposing their own evaluation metrics based upon the initiatives
• So have there been any discussions for you to re-evaluate or talk to them about reevaluating?
• We're evaluate by the Cicero Institute and that that hygienist by the Oral Health Workforce Research

Transcript Highlights:

• So for instance, always evaluating.
• So there may participants are evaluated.
• <00:32:01.039> and they do get the uh evaluations and they do get the uh evaluations and assessments
• We're evaluating others. It's a little touchy.
• We're evaluating others. It's a little touchy.

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• STR20 requesting the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to comprehensively re-evaluate its
• testimony in support of STR20, which urges the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to re-evaluate
• <00:03:20.400> its<00:03:20.720> policies comprehensively re-evaluate its policies
• comprehensively re-evaluate its policies regarding<00:03:21.920> in-person<00:03:22.640> contact
• <00:05:11.440> its Rehabilitation to re-evaluate its Rehabilitation to re-evaluate its policies

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Public Safety met on April 17, 2025, to hear STR20, which urges the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to re-evaluate policies on in-person contact visitation at correctional facilities statewide so incarcerated people can stay connected with loved ones who support rehabilitation. Director Tommy Johnson testified that the department supports the intent of the measure and would review its policies and procedures to see whether contact visits could be restarted at all facilities, noting that some facilities already allow them. The committee also acknowledged 11 written testimonies in support, and one Zoom testifier, Panda Valdono, spoke in favor, arguing that in-person visitation supports rehabilitation, mental health, family connection, and successful reentry, and that visitation is not a major source of contraband. After testimony, the committee initially lacked quorum and recessed until 3:40 p.m. When the meeting reopened with six members present, the chair recommended passing STR20 as is. The committee voted to adopt the chair’s recommendation, with members Morikawa, Puo, Witson, and Shimizu voting aye and several members excused. The measure was approved and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• institutions this will allow<00:01:49.719> them<00:01:50.000> to<00:01:50.520> evaluate
• <00:01:51.520> each<00:01:52.159> person's allow them to evaluate each person's allow
• them to evaluate each person's curriculum<00:01:53.119> that's<00:01:53.280> coming<00
• So each individual will be evaluated on an individual basis. states that that can bridge over but for
• thank you thank you um former evaluated thank you thank you um former representative<00:04:11.879>

Keywords: Roll Call 00:20 Discussion on HB 303 00:45 Vote on HB 303 04:41 Discussion on HB 305 05:32 Vote on HB 305 08:34, 958, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Health Services met with a quorum and heard House Bill 303 first. Representative Steve Bratcher explained that the bill would let U.S. military members with medical training transition that experience into Kentucky health-care credentials more quickly. Schools and colleges would evaluate military curricula on an individual basis, identify gaps, and allow those gaps to be filled with additional classes or clinical time before the person sits for the required exam. The bill was described as applying broadly across medical fields, not just nursing, and it would not waive testing or standards. Senators asked whether the process would compare credentials across states and whether the bill covered only U.S. military service; Bratcher said evaluations would be individualized and the bill was primarily for those who served in the U.S. military. HB 303 received an 11-0 favorable vote. The committee then took up House Bill 305, presented by Representative Ken Fleming. He said the committee substitute would expand an existing health-care workforce award program to include dietitians and physician assistants, clarify that certain EMS-related services may be owned or operated by a hospital rather than only owned by one, and provide more flexibility around licensing timelines after a certificate of need is issued by the Kentucky Board of Emergency Medical Services. After a motion and second, the committee voted unanimously to amend and pass HB 305 with favorable expression. A title amendment was also adopted unanimously. Before adjournment, the chair noted that the next regular meeting was scheduled for March 12 and warned that a special-called meeting might be needed the following Monday because of bills arriving from the House. No further business was taken up, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our first one is going to be with the June Shelton School and Evaluation Center.
• This group is currently leading the research and evaluation for the Education Innovation and Research
• But no other independent research evaluator is embedded into the pathways program.
• . ...a rubric to evaluate applicants to apply for grants.
• We have one contract; this is a contract with the psychiatrist for evaluation services.

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So if you have severe PTSD and you take medication for it, your benefits will be evaluated not based
• Benefits will be evaluated not based on your underlying PTSD, but based on your condition after taking
• the medication at the time you are being evaluated.
• The agency evaluated available satellite data, explored how it could advance scientific research and
• The agency evaluated available satellite data, explored how it could advance scientific research and

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Monday, February 23, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Annual evaluations become voluntary.
• Annual evaluations become voluntary.
• Um, the second option is a portfolio evaluation by an evaluator.
• <01:51:23.760> And<01:51:24.000> the evaluation by an evaluator.
• And the evaluation by an evaluator.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um we further evaluation and testing.
• The heart is a further evaluation.
• HB 1595. comprehensive um eval evaluation metrics comprehensive um eval evaluation metrics to<01:36:11.360
• /c><01:36:12.880> and to evaluate both the superintendent and to evaluate both the superintendent
• <01:36:31.360> this exceeding expectations evaluation this exceeding expectations evaluation

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 2485, which would require cardiovascular screening for student athletes. The Department of Education and Department of Health said they support the bill’s intent but noted that many screenings are already part of existing school-entry and well-child exams. The Attorney General’s office asked for clarifying language on who performs the screenings, where results go, how “positive findings” are defined, how referrals would work, and whether funding would be appropriated if DOE must hire health professionals. The American Heart Association strongly supported the bill, citing the risk of sudden cardiac arrest in young athletes and arguing that sports physicals are an effective opportunity for early detection. No vote was taken, and the committee moved on after testimony. The committee then heard HB 89, concerning a school psychologist working group and possible licensing or credentialing of school psychologists. The Department of Education and Board of Psychology supported the measure. The Hawaii Psychological Association said it supports licensing school psychologists but asked to be included in the working group, arguing it is an important stakeholder. The Hawaii Association of School Psychologists opposed including HPA, saying the issue is between school psychologists and DCCA and that HPA is not part of their organization. Testimony and discussion focused on the long-running disagreement over whether school psychologists should be regulated under the Board of Psychology or another mechanism, and on title protection and scope of practice. No action was reported during this portion. The committee also took up HB 2445, relating to standardized emergency responses for immigration enforcement at or near schools. The Department of Education said it already issued internal law-enforcement guidance and questioned whether the bill was necessary, while also raising concerns about the bill’s 1,000-foot buffer language and the limits of school authority over activity off campus. The Board of Education echoed those concerns and suggested the bill may need clearer definitions. Supporters, including the White Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the Legal Clinic, and an attorney testifying on Know Your Rights training, argued that recent federal changes have increased ICE activity near schools and that a law is needed to ensure clear, public protocols, staff training, and family protections. A student testifier said the measure was a top priority of the state student council. The transcript ends during testimony, with no vote or final committee action shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• closeout evaluations. closeout evaluations.
• And for the remaining four evaluations, BHA could not find any documentation to support closeout evaluations
• were backdated in the evaluations were backdated in the system.
• > days<00:15:34.640> of evaluation evaluations within 60 days of evaluation evaluations within
• , And for the remaining four evaluations, And for the remaining four evaluations, BHA<00:15:50.400

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Furthermore, the data they do collect is often insufficient for curriculum evaluation due to the high
• Students and parents alike welcome a serious evaluation of whether the MCA is the right tool for high
• of whether the MCA is serious evaluation of whether the MCA is the<00:27:21.520> right<00:27:
• Let's begin the evaluation with the classic carrot-and-stick analogy for students and families.
• Julia Caesar, and I am the executive director of research, evaluation, and assessment at Bloomington

Keywords: 1187, senate, all