Transcript Highlights:

• Bucky from Judicial Council here? Say that again. Jay Bucky from Judicial Council is here.
• Oh, Bucky from Judicial Council is here. Oh, the Judicial Council. Yes, welcome.
• over which bills would get judicial over which bills would get judicial review<00:40:55.480>
• But it is a long-term view. that money from a different judicial that money from a different judicial
• right other questions for judicial right other questions for judicial councel<00:58:25.680> no

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first discussed a proposed increase to the annual elevator certificate fee in the Department of Labor. The commissioner said the fee had been $50 for years and generated just under $300,000 annually, while the Inspection Division’s broader revenue far exceeded its expenses. Members noted the fee only covered the certificate, not the inspection itself, which is billed separately at $100 per hour. After comparing the fee to neighboring states and discussing the department’s revenue and staffing, the committee agreed to rewrite the language to set the fee at $75 and to vote on an amendment later. The committee then took up Section 139, which would expand the list of labor-law violations that can be penalized without first issuing a warning. The Department explained the change was meant to align House Bill 157 with other chapters, including youth employment and workers’ compensation provisions, where immediate civil penalties are already allowed. The section was accepted unanimously. A longer discussion followed on the Second Injury Fund. The commissioner explained that the fund reimburses insurers for certain workers’ compensation costs tied to claims involving pre-existing conditions, is financed by assessments on insurers, and requires notice within 100 weeks of injury plus a $10,000 deductible before reimbursement. He said the fund currently holds roughly $16 million to $22 million, one full-time employee administers it, and total staff involvement is about five to six people. Members questioned whether the fund should be sunset, but the department said the current House Bill 2 language does not propose a sunset; instead, it addresses increased hearing and litigation burdens after a recent Supreme Court decision. Sections 140 and 141, dealing with hearings, were then accepted unanimously. The committee also briefly discussed fines for late insurance coverage reporting, with the department noting the current rubric allows up to $50 per day but uses $112 per day, and members suggesting a lower amount.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1369 adopts reasonable, commonsense reforms to our judicial recall process.
• SB 1369 establishes safeguards for California's judicial recall process.
• We think there's a problem with judicial recalls, and in general, the politicization of the judicial
• We think there's a problem with judicial recalls, and in general, the politicization of the judicial
• And none of them, in my view, are premised on any judicial misconduct of any sort.

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on July 1, 2026, heard a full agenda of election-related measures, and took final votes on several bills and one resolution. The committee also adopted two consent items, SB 1429 and SB 1430, without opposition. Members and the chair repeatedly noted committee membership changes and the final meeting of the session, and the chair emphasized the committee’s focus on protecting democracy and election integrity. Among the bills heard, SB 1369 would shorten the signature-gathering period for judicial recalls in larger counties and require paid gatherers to disclose they are compensated; supporters argued it would protect judicial independence, while the chair and some members noted the need to balance recall rights with county differences. SB 900 would reformat campaign disclosure language on large print ads and billboards to improve readability while preserving transparency, with broad support from outdoor advertising, clean money, and good-government groups. SJR 18, which condemns Citizens United and urges action against corporate spending in elections, drew support from reform advocates but also concerns about the resolution’s focus and scope; it was advanced on a party-line split with some members voting no. The committee also advanced SB 1164, a major voting-rights measure expanding California protections against vote dilution and voter suppression, adding preclearance-style review for some jurisdictions, and directing courts to interpret election laws in favor of voting access. Local government representatives opposed it unless amended, citing uncertainty, loss of safe-harbor protections, and implementation concerns, while civil-rights and labor groups strongly supported it. SB 1360, which expands language-access requirements for voters with limited English proficiency and lowers coverage thresholds, was supported by voting-rights and immigrant-advocacy groups but opposed by elections officials unless amended; the committee acknowledged the need for further work on county-level implementation and data standards. The committee also approved SB 1418, which extends protections against seizure of election records and voting systems beyond voted ballots, and SB 884, which creates a buffer zone around polling places and vote-by-mail drop locations to prevent interference with voting and ballot custody, though sheriffs and police groups opposed the arrest restrictions. SB 46, which would give the Secretary of State clearer authority to remove constitutionally ineligible presidential and vice-presidential candidates from the ballot, and SB 715, which moves candidate ballot-designation challenge deadlines earlier, also advanced. Most measures were sent to Appropriations or otherwise held on call for absent members, and the meeting ended with final roll calls and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• called the Judicial Council, we are not in fact part of the judicial branch.
• <01:58:51.760> Council to the judicial Council to the judicial Council um<01:58:53.840>
• needed both additional judicial needed both additional judicial resources<02:11:25.119> and
• clerical so non-judicial clerical so non-judicial staff<02:46:27.560> that<02:46:27.680><
• Target okay that's all non-judicial Target okay that's all non-judicial correct<02:46:43.920>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony from Insurance Commissioner DJ Bettencourt on the New Hampshire Insurance Department budget. He said the department is self-funded through assessments on insurers based on New Hampshire premium volume, with about $8 billion in premiums written in the state and a department budget of roughly $15.5 million. He explained that the department has 88 authorized positions, eight vacancies, and that three full-time positions were unfunded after the governor’s requested 4% reduction exercise. He also said the department is trying to balance staffing needs with not overburdening carriers during a hard insurance market. A major topic was the department’s $2.6 million rebate to industry from the prior fiscal year, which Bettencourt described as a credit against the next assessment rather than a direct cash payment. Members questioned why that credit was not reflected as a reduction in the upcoming budget, and Bettencourt and staff explained that the budget assumes full staffing and full spending, with any year-end surplus returned to insurers. The commissioner said the department had added staff in recent years for succession planning and to preserve institutional expertise, and that the rebate reflects careful budgeting rather than excess spending. Members also asked about staffing changes by division, including positions unfunded in fraud, property and casualty examinations, life and health examinations, and tax. Bettencourt said fraud investigations remain strong and that the department can use outside contractors for examinations, with those costs billed to the company being examined. He also described the department’s examination process, including periodic financial exams and targeted market conduct reviews triggered by consumer complaints or trends. Additional questions covered OIT transfers, the department’s oversight of fully insured health coverage, the insurance premium tax and fines going to the general fund, and the department’s limited role in auto repair reimbursement disputes, where he said complaints have recently declined.

Transcript Highlights:

• Morgan Larry Zabal, legislative advocate with the Judicial Council...
• I just had a question for Judicial Council.
• County, so that way this wouldn't be an impact for Judicial Council? Well, L.A.
• So the Judicial Council decides which counties have the feasibility to do that.
• So the Judicial Council decides which counties have the feasibility to do that.

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on civil rights, housing, public safety, and administrative process. Early items included SB 46, which would authorize the Secretary of State to remove constitutionally ineligible presidential and vice presidential candidates from California ballots; SB 1078, requiring notice to the Civil Rights Department when court filings involve civil rights violations; SB 989, expanding access to Care Court by letting first responders refer cases through county behavioral health agencies; SB 998, clarifying and expanding discrimination prevention coordinators in the new Office of Civil Rights; SB 1146, requiring disclosure for AI-generated health advertisements and giving physicians a limited private right of action; SB 1164, a California Voting Rights Act expansion responding to federal voting-rights rulings; SB 1256, a housing bill aimed at limiting repeated litigation over the Harmony Grove Village South project; SB 1267, addressing HOA liability and indemnification for EV charger installations; and SB 1425, authorizing an encroachment permit program for high-speed rail right-of-way management. The committee also later heard SB 873, restricting ICE arrests near courthouses, and SB 1160, requiring eviction data reporting by zip code. Most bills drew support from sponsors, advocacy groups, labor organizations, or local officials, while opposition centered on concerns about county workload, due process, fire safety, civil liberties, or the scope of the policy changes. Members generally expressed support for the bills while noting unresolved issues and the need for amendments or further stakeholder work, especially on SB 1164, SB 1256, SB 1267, SB 1425, and SB 1160. The Judicial Council opposed SB 1160 because of the burden of adding zip-code reporting to court systems, while the author and supporters argued the data would help target eviction-prevention efforts. SB 873 drew strong support from public defenders, immigrant-rights groups, and court-related stakeholders, with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department opposing. SB 989 drew support from firefighters and family advocates, while Disability Rights California opposed, arguing Care Court is too costly and diverts resources from community-based services. SB 1164 received broad civil-rights and voting-rights support, with cities opposing unless amended over definitions, cure periods, and litigation risk. SB 1256 drew support from housing and labor interests and opposition from local residents and environmental groups concerned about fire safety and evacuation. SB 1267 was supported by the HOA and utility stakeholders after amendments addressing liability concerns. After quorum was established, the committee voted to pass a consent calendar and then approved the listed bills, sending them to the appropriate committees or to Appropriations, including SB 46, SB 873, SB 989, SB 998, SB 1078, SB 1146, SB 1164, SB 1256, SB 1267, and SB 1425. The transcript ends with SB 1160 still under discussion, with members indicating support for the bill’s goals but acknowledging the Judicial Council’s implementation concerns and the need for further work.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is judicial review de novo?
• I don't think it will fly judicially. I don't think it'll go.
• Katherine, I think I heard you say you didn't think this is going to pass judicial muster.
• into the judicial branch?
• <00:31:36.919> branch<00:31:37.720> um into our judicial branch um into our judicial

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 90 / Senate Bill 17, a birth-related measure backed by the Kentucky Birth Coalition. Sponsors said the bill had been worked on for several years and described changes including a transfer agreement, insurance requirements, proximity to a hospital, informed consent, and accreditation/medical director standards that helped win neutral or non-opposition from the Hospital Association. The bill was reported favorably after a roll call vote with unanimous support. The committee then heard Senate Bill 65, presented by Senator Steve West and Representative Derrick Lewis. They said the bill would make regulations found deficient through the committee review process null and void by statute, and would bar agencies from reissuing the same or similar language for up to a year. Supporters argued this was needed to hold agencies accountable because deficiency findings alone had not led to action. After questions about specific Medicaid behavioral health regulations and concerns about legislative overreach, the bill passed the committee on a roll call vote, with some members passing or explaining reservations. Finally, the committee considered Senate Bill 84, with a House committee substitute. Sponsors said the substitute was intended to strengthen the bill and reflect the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision by ending Chevron deference and requiring courts, not agencies, to interpret law. Opponents, including Audrey Ernsberger and Katherine Hargraves, argued the bill would intrude on the judiciary, violate separation of powers, and could harm public health, environmental, and workplace protections. Committee members also raised concerns about whether the bill told courts what standard to use; sponsors responded that agencies could still present persuasive arguments, but courts should not defer to them. The committee substitute was adopted, and the bill then passed the committee on a roll call vote, with several members passing or expressing constitutional concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• addresses that I got off the judicial addresses that I got off the judicial branch<00:23:09.159>
• six slide seven is our judicial six slide seven is our judicial headcount<00:39:01.359> we
• fully um staffed in terms of judicial fully um staffed in terms of judicial officers<00:39:07.599
• can I think if you have the judicial can I think if you have the judicial Council<01:06:08.799><
• It's quasi-judicial.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee met for its first meeting of the new session with opening remarks, member introductions, and a discussion of committee logistics. Members described their backgrounds and priorities, including criminal justice, right-to-know and privacy issues, domestic violence, death-with-dignity legislation, abortion, firearms, landlord-tenant policy, housing, and technology/privacy concerns. The chair noted there were already 34 bills assigned to the committee and expected more, and said the committee would likely continue to have a heavy workload this session. The chair also outlined how the committee would operate: meetings would generally be on Wednesdays, with possible Mondays as needed; hearings would not require a quorum, but executive sessions would; and members were asked to provide updated phone numbers and email addresses, especially cell numbers. He explained that the committee would continue its practice of seating members in a mixed partisan arrangement to encourage communication, and that the new clerk had joined the committee. A significant portion of the meeting focused on procedures for executive sessions and meeting times. The chair said the committee would follow the traditional rule allowing executive sessions on bills heard that day if proper notice was given, but he would avoid taking up controversial matters without full attendance. Members then discussed whether meetings should start at 9, 9:30, or 10 a.m., with concerns raised about long commutes, evening obligations, and winter driving after dark. No formal vote was taken in the portion provided, but the chair indicated he would try to accommodate the committee’s preference while balancing the workload.

Transcript Highlights:

• judicial districts both respect county lines and judicial candidates are included in the guide.
• judicial district because uh judicial judicial district because uh judicial districts<00:37:12.160
• judicial space is actual information. judicial space is actual information.
• we include judicial candidates. we include judicial candidates.
• County area has the largest judicial County area has the largest judicial district<01:32:30.880>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, the first is the judicial security and courthouse bill.
• branch and all the courouses we judicial branch and all the courouses we have<00:02:00.399> across
• Um the first is<00:02:18.800> the<00:02:19.120> judicial<00:02:19.680> security<
• judicial security and courthouse bill.<00:02:21.760> Um<00:02:22.080> that<00:02:22.400
• <00:02:40.400> branch yellow ties here for the judicial branch yellow ties here for the judicial

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 3230, a security package combining several bills related to political and Capitol security. Members first adopted the DE6 amendment, described as reflecting the negotiated allocation and appropriations language, and then heard Chair Mullen explain that the bill covers judicial security and courthouse grants, continued Capitol grounds screening, hardware and hardening improvements, legislative services home security, temporary local law enforcement support for credible threats, a new task force, funding for the BCA threat assessment team, and DPS deficiency funding tied to recent events. Discussion focused largely on the balance between security and public access. Representative West objected to the Capitol screening and metal detectors, arguing the Capitol is the “people’s house” and questioning the cost and fairness of the measures; he also asked whether the bill changed who controls Capitol security. In response, members said the scanners were not created by this bill but were already decided by the governor and security commission, and that the bill includes a provision clarifying the chain of command and training responsibilities. Other members supported the package as a necessary response to political violence and threats, emphasizing protection for lawmakers, staff, visitors, and the public. After discussion, the committee renewed the motion to place House File 3230, as amended, on the general register. The motion passed without opposition.

Transcript Highlights:

• And for the record, just this is an interesting statistic.
• this administration to get a judicial this administration to get a judicial warrant<05:54:07.680
• Speaker, instead of the absurd demands of asking for judicial warrants after immigration judges have
• Speaker, instead of the absurd demands of asking for judicial warrants after immigration judges have
• It provides for no judicial oversight of these government queries.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• our school building without a judicial our school building without a judicial warrant. warrant.
• the school buildings without a judicial the school buildings without a judicial warrant. warrant
• valid judicial warrant. valid judicial warrant. That's<00:35:59.680> it. That's it.
• The Attorney General has already issued guidance to schools about judicial warrants.
• Thank you. guidance to schools about judicial guidance to schools about judicial warrants.<00:36:33.120

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Although they are nominees, they are still bound by the code of judicial conduct, and depending on the
• However, the same concept applies here. judicial conduct, judicial conduct, similar<00:17:09.679>
• Um, as a member of the judicial Um, as a member of the judicial retention<00:22:55.679> committee<
• <00:26:00.240> When<00:26:00.480> she our judicial system right now.
• When she our judicial system right now.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• no recourse other than to file for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking them to order judicial
• no recourse other than to file for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking them to order judicial
• no recourse other than to file for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking them to order judicial
• no recourse other than to file for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking them to order judicial
• no recourse other than to file for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking them to order judicial

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The judicial branch is not a discretionary program like much of what we deal with here in this House
• The judicial branch must be funded appropriately.
• The judicial branch was not at the negotiating table when leaders from the other two branches decided
• However, we are bringing you a conference report that underfunds the judicial branch.
• We funded operating adjustments to judicial staff at a level that would support less than a 1% raise,

Transcript Highlights:

• Manual of mental disorders statistical Manual of mental disorders also<00:59:18.480> known<00
• If we are so concerned about the safety of women and children, then why don't we follow the statistics
• If we are so concerned about the safety of women and children, then why don't we follow the statistics
• If we are so concerned about the safety of women and children, then why don't we follow the statistics
• If we are so concerned about the safety of women and children, then why don't we follow the statistics

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Judiciary Committee opened a hearing on House Bill 148, which Rep. Jim Kofalt said is the same language as last year’s HB 396, vetoed by the governor. He described the bill as allowing, but not requiring, separation by biological sex in three areas: bathrooms and locker rooms, houses of correction, and certain athletic competitions. Kofalt argued the bill would give local school boards and other policymakers discretion to set practical rules, citing concerns about safety, privacy, and a Milford incident involving a biological male in girls’ locker rooms. Committee members pressed him on the lack of a definition of “biological sex,” and he said he did not think one was necessary because males and females are commonly understood. He also said the bill was meant to address situations where outside groups threaten lawsuits and leave local boards with no latitude. Testimony then split sharply. Supporters, including Executive Counselor Karen Hill and several others, said HB 148 would roll back anti-discrimination protections, contradict New Hampshire’s “Live Free or Die” values, and harm transgender and non-binary people. Opponents described the bill as discriminatory and unnecessary, arguing that existing bathroom and sports policies already work and that the bill would invite harassment, invasive enforcement, and legal conflict. Several speakers, including trans residents and parents of trans children, said they had used public restrooms without incident and warned that enforcement would be impractical or abusive. One supporter argued the bill was needed to protect girls’ privacy and safety and cited school sports disputes and a concern about a sex offender at a game as examples of why sex-segregated rules should be restored. Committee members asked questions about how biological sex would be defined, whether the bill was responding to real incidents in New Hampshire, and how any restrictions would be enforced. Kofalt said he was aware of issues in several school districts and at the State House, but did not have detailed documentation for every case. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the hearing provided; the chair instead moved through public testimony under a strict two-minute limit and noted that follow-up questions would be limited so the committee could hear multiple bills that day.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:02:47.120> officer warrant signed by a judicial officer warrant signed by a judicial officer
• difference between judicial warrants and admin<00:04:20.880> warrants.
• judicial warrant from doing their job. judicial warrant from doing their job.
• Thank you. law that a valid judicial warrant is law that a valid judicial warrant is required<00:35:04.640
• <00:53:12.720> warrant without even showing a judicial warrant without even showing a judicial

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee took up House File 3415, a bill aimed at limiting immigration enforcement activity at child care centers. House Research explained the DE1 amendment, which defined key terms and barred child care employees from consenting to civil immigration enforcement entry without a judicial warrant, while requiring officials to identify themselves and state their purpose; the amendment also clarified that it would not block officials administering child care programs. After brief debate, members adopted the DE1 amendment. The bill author, Representative Sensor Mura, said the measure was intended to address fear and disruption in child care settings caused by recent immigration enforcement activity and to keep those spaces safe for children and families. Supporters, including a pastor, a Children’s Defense Fund representative, parents, child care workers, and an ACLU policy counsel, testified that immigration enforcement near daycares has caused fear, staff absences, lockdowns, and emotional harm to children. They argued the bill would not stop lawful enforcement but would require warrants and basic identification before entry, protecting children from witnessing raids or arrests and giving providers clear rules. Several witnesses described specific incidents involving ICE activity near Spanish immersion daycares in Minneapolis and St. Paul, including staff members being detained, parents organizing safety watches, and children showing distress. Testimony emphasized that many affected children are U.S. citizens in immigrant families and that visible enforcement can create toxic stress and separation anxiety. No final action on the bill was taken in the portion of the meeting provided beyond adoption of the DE1 amendment and continuation of testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• that the judicial officer consider the person's status as a resident of West Virginia.
• It only requires that the judicial officer give consideration to the resident...
• That the judicial officer give consideration to the residency status.
• It's only which judicial officer may issue that PR bond. Correct.
• They have a defense lawyer, and they have a full judicial review in front of a magistrate.

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the prior minutes, and then considered a series of House bills, with several administrative reminders about floor session and the need to keep testimony focused. House Bill 4169, which expands the list of professionals who may provide the verified mental health certificate needed to petition to regain firearm possession rights, was reported to the full Senate without amendment. House Bill 4364, establishing concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government over certain military lands and related juvenile matters, was amended with technical/title changes and then reported as amended. House Bill 4366, allowing military protective orders to be used as evidence in protective-order proceedings and requiring notice to issuing agencies after arrests, was also amended and reported as amended. The committee then took up House Bill 4415, a strike-and-insert measure increasing penalties for bringing telecommunications devices and other contraband into correctional facilities, expanding the definition of telecommunications device, and adding federal correctional facilities; the strike-and-insert and title amendment were adopted, and the bill was reported as amended. House Bill 4606, which revises bail factors and adds language stating a magistrate may not release a felony defendant on personal recognizance, drew extensive debate and testimony from the House Judiciary chair, court system officials, and advocates. Concerns centered on whether the bill conflicted with existing code, whether magistrates should be barred from PR bonds in felony cases, and the impact on poor defendants and jail populations; an amendment to strike the felony PR-bond prohibition failed, and the bill was reported on a divided vote. House Bill 4610, expanding the Right to Try Act to include patients with life-threatening or severely debilitating illnesses and additional treatment types such as biosimilars and individualized gene therapies, was reported without amendment. House Bill 4552, clarifying that correctional officers are law enforcement officers for purposes of federal concealed-carry protections, received a technical amendment and was reported as amended. House Bill 4625, relating to the real estate transfer tax, was amended to change the valuation calculation and add/clarify exemptions, then reported as amended. House Bill 4755, adding certain offenses to the list of crimes triggering enhanced sentencing for repeat offenders, was reported with a title amendment. House Bill 4842, clarifying that civil remedies for unauthorized disclosure of intimate images apply to sexual extortion and aggravated sexual extortion and establishing joint and several liability, was amended and reported as amended. Finally, House Bill 4850, requiring the State Bar to post free online educational materials about executors and administrators of estates, was amended and reported as amended after discussion about scope, disclaimers, and existing county resources; the committee then recessed for floor session, with two remaining bills postponed.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we also have some financial concerns about the change for the judicial retirement fund.
• So, we also have some financial concerns about the change for the judicial retirement fund.
• Um, the judicial plan, you had the judges and clerks and their benefit that was created in 2016, but
• So, we also have some financial concerns about the change for the judicial retirement fund.
• >> Talking about the funding for the judicial side.

Bills: HB304, HB285, HB312, HB311, SB60

Keywords: impoundment, driver licenses, vehicle redemption, local identification cards, law enforcement, HB285, TJ's Law, traffic infraction, traffic ticket, uniform traffic ticket and complaint, minor driver, juvenile driver, parent notification, guardian notification, emergency contact, citing agency, traffic citation, driver safety, youth safety, Alabama traffic law

Transcript Highlights:

• judicial judicial Council Council Council um<01:48:33.280> to um to um to um<01:48:37.280>
• <01:48:48.040> account it's listed under judicial account it's listed under judicial account
• <01:51:17.719> council I know that the we the judicial council I know that the we the judicial
• <01:51:32.119> C within a certain limit the judicial C within a certain limit the judicial
• how are they going to fund the judicial how are they going to fund the judicial Council<01:51:55.000

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 313, and Representative Perez moved to retain the bill, saying it needed work and was not ready as written. Representative Smith supported that approach, and the motion to retain passed 18-0. The committee then considered House Bill 391, an anti-SLAPP measure. Representative Smith and others argued the bill was too broad, could create litigation and discovery disputes, and might even be read to affect criminal cases. The committee voted 18-0 to retain HB 391 as well, and the chair agreed to place it on consent with a report to be prepared. The committee next heard House Bill 462, establishing a cause of action for unwarranted video imaging of residential properties. Representative McFarland moved to retain, saying the bill raised First Amendment and property-rights concerns. The motion passed 18-0. The committee then took up House Bill 509, a fiscal note bill requiring reporting related to forfeitures. Members on both sides discussed the bill’s cost, the burden of collecting and collating the data, possible duplication across fiscal years, and whether the information was already being collected. The OTP motion passed 11-7, and Chairman Lynn asked Representative McFarland to prepare the report; a minority report was anticipated. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 520, which would authorize Department of Education hearing officers to issue subpoenas. Representative Kuttab supported the bill, saying similar authority exists in other agencies and states. Opponents argued the DOE already can obtain information through the attorney general, that the bill would create an unbalanced internal enforcement process, and that the subpoena authority was not tied to the curriculum-related concerns raised in testimony. Representative Ter offered Amendment 0842H to shift subpoena authority from DOE hearing officers to the attorney general; the amendment failed 7-11. The committee then voted on the bill as amended, and the OTP motion passed 10-8, with a minority report also requested.

Transcript Highlights:

• Essentially, this is a new budget obligation that the judicial council has not had previously.
• Essentially, this is a new budget obligation that the judicial council has not had previously.
• Essentially, this is a new budget obligation that the judicial council has not had previously.
• paying for these, to my agency, the judicial council.
• So essentially the payment obligation went from the judicial branch to the judicial council. >> Okay.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Fiscal Committee met on Friday, November 21st and first approved the October 17th minutes, with one member abstaining because she was not present. The committee then adopted the remainder of the consent calendar after removing two items for separate consideration. On tab four, members discussed item 25282 with the Commissioner of Administrative Services and Public Works staff; the project had been delayed after testing revealed design errors and flaws, and the committee was told the work would restart with test piles the following week and was projected for completion in fall 2027. The item was approved. On tab five, item 25279 concerned a Health and Human Services facility project and a federally required element added late in the process. Commissioners explained that the project had originally been funded at $21 million, later required additional financing, and that the legislature had recently lifted a restriction so non-ARPA funds could be used. They also said the sale of the existing Manchester property would not be needed to complete the build, that a broker RFP was about to be issued, and that any sale would require further approvals. The committee approved the item. The committee then approved item 25280 after a brief exchange about rainy day fund estimates and prior budget assumptions, and approved item 25278 without discussion. Item 25272 drew questions about the consumer advocate’s RFP for outside utility-rate-case assistance; the office said it eliminated proposals focused only on return on equity work after the Eversource decision, selected a Michigan firm for spreadsheet and operating-cost analysis, and noted there were no in-state firms doing this specialized work. The committee approved the item, with one member recorded in opposition. On tab nine, item 25261 concerned a new judicial council budget obligation tied to legislation and public defense staffing needs. The presenter said the request reflected a late-added obligation from the judicial branch, that more requests may still be needed, and that public defense staffing was strained by vacancies and competition from Massachusetts. The committee approved the item. Under informational items, members received an update on 529 plan distributions and on interest and dividends tax refunds, with Revenue Administration saying roughly $21 million more in refunds remained and that the repeal-related refunds were nearly finished. The committee also noted an environmental services item for which questions would be submitted separately. The next meeting was set for December 19th at 11:00 a.m., and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• of thing that when we do that from the legislature, uh, how would you enforce this action on the judicial
• Why this matters, if I have a chance to talk about statistics, I'll take it: law enforcement officers
• We include both statistical data and we also do a lot of talking to people.
• violence we include both statistical violence we include both statistical data<01:14:53.080>
• Obviously, we believe, and I think the statistics support that, when we do give them that representation

Keywords: 1187, senate, all