Transcript Highlights:

• hearing.
• hearing.
• hearing.
• I know I've set aside two days for this fact-finding evidentiary hearing.
• So essentially that's what will happen during this fact-finding evidentiary hearing.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The hearing concerned a Legislative Ethics Board complaint against Representative Tara Simmons in Washington State OAH Docket 401-645. The judge outlined the process, the two issues on appeal—whether Simmons violated RCW 42.52.020 and RCW 42.52.070, and, if so, what penalty should apply—and admitted a number of exhibits by stipulation or prior ruling, while taking one exhibit under advisement pending an offer of proof. The board also moved to sequester witnesses, which was granted, and the judge deferred ruling on a motion to exclude three defense witnesses until after hearing the board staff’s case. Opening statements followed, with staff alleging Simmons used her position to benefit an outside organization and to secure special privileges, and the defense arguing the conduct was lawful, technical in nature, and consistent with prior ethics guidance. Board staff then called Kimberly Gordon, an attorney and founding board member/treasurer of American Equity and Justice Group (AEJG), as its first witness. Gordon testified that AEJG used data dashboards to make justice-system data more accessible, received state proviso funding sponsored by Simmons, and also received two donations from Simmons—$10,000 and $40,000. She said the first donation was intended to help hire Antoine Coleman, whom Simmons had recommended and who was later identified as Simmons’s romantic partner, and that AEJG returned the $10,000 and declined the $40,000 after concluding there was a potential conflict of interest. Gordon also testified that AEJG believed Simmons’s involvement in the organization and her communications about Coleman created ethical concerns. Gordon further testified about a second proviso intended to expand AEJG’s work into education data and its subcontract with Equity in Education Coalition (EEC). She said EEC did not perform the expected deliverables, prompting repeated communications with the Administrative Office of the Courts and a meeting involving Chris Stanley, where AEJG raised concerns that EEC was not complying and that Simmons had intervened in the dispute. According to Gordon, Stanley ultimately directed the parties to rewrite the subcontract and continue, but AEJG later moved forward largely without EEC’s assistance. The board staff introduced AEJG’s complaint and related timeline exhibits during her testimony. After direct examination, the hearing recessed for lunch, and cross-examination by Simmons’s counsel began when the hearing resumed.

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, we hear that term shortage all the time, right?
• So you have this evidentiary hearing that's coming up, and all of a sudden there's no police report.
• hearing.
• However, we do feel the requirement for an evidentiary hearing prior to appointment raises litigation
• Thank you for hearing this bill.

Summary: The committee approved the minutes and then heard a long series of bills, mostly from Senators Hoffman, Fernandez, and Bolick. Early action included SB 1436 on school bond/override ballot language, which passed 4-3 after brief debate over ballot length and transparency. SB 1568, requiring election systems to keep clocks within 60 seconds of official time and making violations a misdemeanor, was amended and passed 4-3 despite concerns about machine failures and the breadth of the penalty. SB 1569, limiting special election board members from collecting voter registrations while assisting confined voters, also passed 4-3 after testimony from county officials and a deputy registrar describing alleged misuse of SEBs. SB 1746, requiring schools to serve as polling places and closing schools on regular primary/general election days for staff training, passed 4-3 over objections about school autonomy and safety. SB 1295, allowing certain incarcerated people needing long-term care or treatment to be transferred to contracted medical institutions, passed unanimously after an amendment narrowing the medical eligibility language. The committee then took up SB 1067, a county blight/abatement bill allowing property tax bills to include assessments for removing rubbish, debris, and dilapidated structures; county officials from Gila and Pima Counties strongly supported it, and it passed 7-0. SB 1285, which would have repealed kratom protections and added kratom and its alkaloids to the narcotic-drug list, drew strong opposition from industry and a pharmacist and failed 3-4 after debate over safety, regulation, and criminal penalties. SB 1413, removing the $100,000 restitution cap for serious injury or death caused by a moving violation, passed after a short explanation that it was intended to conform statutes to a prior Arizona Supreme Court ruling. SB 1476, making prenatal exposure to dangerous or narcotic drugs and fetal alcohol syndrome a class six felony child neglect offense with an affirmative defense for mothers who completed treatment, drew emotional testimony from a foster/adoptive parent and opposition from reproductive justice and criminal defense advocates; it passed 4-2. Later, SB 1585, creating standards and funding mechanisms for sex offender-specific evaluations, treatment, and polygraphs, passed 4-2 after supporters argued it would improve oversight and opponents questioned the added surcharge and appropriation. SB 1662, requiring probation conditions to be the least restrictive necessary and tailored to risk and needs, passed 5-0 with support from justice reform advocates and defense attorneys. SB 1664, adjusting constable nomination signature requirements in Maricopa and Pima Counties, passed unanimously after county association support. The committee then began SB 1666 on in-state custodial interference, with the sponsor and a supporter describing repeated violations of custody orders and arguing for a tiered civil-penalty-to-felony structure; the transcript ends during questioning on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, we hear that term shortage all the time, right?
• So you have this evidentiary hearing that's coming up, and all of a sudden, there's no police report.
• hearing.
• However, we do feel the requirement for an evidentiary hearing prior to appointment raises litigation
• Thank you for hearing this bill.

Bills: SB1067, SB1234, SB1285, SB1295, SB1392, SB1413, SB1436, SB1470, SB1476, SB1489, SB1512, SB1535, SB1540, SB1556, SB1568, SB1569, SB1570, SB1573, SB1585, SB1609, SB1627, SB1634, SB1635, SB1644, SB1647, SB1648, SB1650, SB1653, SB1654, SB1655, SB1656, SB1657, SB1658, SB1661, SB1662, SB1664, SB1666, SB1667, SB1669, SB1709, SB1720, SB1723, SB1725, SB1743, SB1746, SB1748, SB1755, SB1786, SB1820, SB1822, SB1829, SCR1027, SCR1040, SCR1048

Keywords: tax lien, property tax lien, real property tax lien, foreclosure, right of redemption, redeem, excess proceeds, county abatement lien, abatement lien, lien priority, assessment lien, easement, county treasurer, certificate of purchase, tax delinquency, delinquent property taxes, property owner equity, judgment foreclosure, title report, Arizona Revised Statutes

Transcript Highlights:

• With the consent of the House, the minutes of the preceding day will stand approved, hearing objections
• Hearing no objection, so ordered. Eighth order of business.
• With the consent of the House, Senate Bill 61, Hearing no objection, so ordered.
• Hearing no objection, so ordered.
• Hearing no objection, so ordered. The House is now adjourned until 9:55 a.m. Friday, February 27th.

Bills: HB2720, HB2073, HB2681, HB2720, HB2073, HB2681, SB5467, SB5820, SB5863, SB5892, SCR8406

Keywords: behavioral health, emergency services, health insurance, provider access, mental health funding, premium assistance, funding, healthcare, subsidies, cannabis, license fees, regulatory framework, revenue generation, legalization, SB 5467, water-sewer district, water sewer district, surplus property, public property sale, local government

Transcript Highlights:

• With the consent of the House, the minutes of the preceding day will stand approved, hearing objections
• Hearing no objection, so ordered. Eighth order of business.
• With the consent of the House, Senate Bill 61, Hearing no objection, so ordered.
• Hearing no objection, so ordered.
• Hearing no objection, so ordered. The House is now adjourned until 9:55 a.m. Friday, February 27th.

Bills: HB2720, HB2073, HB2681, SB5467, SB5820, SB5863, SB5892, SCR8406

Keywords: behavioral health, emergency services, health insurance, provider access, mental health funding, premium assistance, funding, healthcare, subsidies, cannabis, license fees, regulatory framework, revenue generation, legalization, SB 5467, water-sewer district, water sewer district, surplus property, public property sale, local government

Summary: The House convened, the clerk called the roll, and a quorum was declared present. Members recited the Pledge of Allegiance, and Pastor Kayla Garza of Stone Church in Yakima offered the opening prayer, asking for wisdom, patience, humility, and cooperation in public service. The Speaker approved the prior day’s minutes by consent and recognized guests in the chamber, including Roger Jacob and students and faculty from Wapato School District, who had been honored in House Resolution 4679, as well as a fourth-grade class from Log Church Christian School in Brewster. The Democratic caucus was announced immediately, and the Republican caucus was scheduled for five minutes later, with the House briefly at ease. Under the fourth order of business, the House agreed by consent to treat bills, memorials, and resolutions on the introduction sheet as first reading items and refer them to the designated committees. Under the eighth order, Senate Bill 6132 was re-referred from the Transportation Committee to the Rules Committee. No objections were raised to these actions. The House then adjourned by consent until 9:55 a.m. on Friday, February 27, the 47th legislative day.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hearing no objection, so ordered.
• Hearing no objection, so ordered. A good member from the 21st District, Representative Ortiz-Self.
• Fifth Order of Business, Will be referred to the committee so designated, hearing no objection, so ordered
• Hearing no objections, so ordered.
• Thursday, February 26th, the 46th Legislative Day, hearing no objections, so ordered.

Bills: HB2720, HB2073, HB2681, HB2720, HB2073, HB2681, SB5467, SB5820, SB5863, SB5892, SCR8406

Keywords: behavioral health, emergency services, health insurance, provider access, mental health funding, premium assistance, funding, healthcare, subsidies, cannabis, license fees, regulatory framework, revenue generation, legalization, SB 5467, water-sewer district, water sewer district, surplus property, public property sale, local government

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll have questions for the whole panel after we hear from each one of you. Thank you.
• testify for or against Senate Bill 1065, please make your way down to identify yourself so we can hear
• Seeing and hearing no public testimony, public testimony is closed.
• Seeing and hearing on public testimony is closed. Bills are pending at this time. No, your choice.
• I tell you, so y'all are going to hear some stories about Paul now.

Bills: SB1065, SB2117, SB2217, SB2363, SB2533, SB2742, SB2743, SB2881, SB2964, SB3013, SB3014

Keywords: SB 1065, handgun carry, license holder, concealed carry, open carry, government contracts, governmental entity, property lease, state agencies, local government, higher education, university, Texas Government Code, Penal Code 30.06, Penal Code 30.07, Penal Code 46.03, Second Amendment, gun rights, firearms, civil penalty

Summary: The Senate State Affairs Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 1065, which would require government property contracts to prohibit contractors from barring licensed handgun holders from carrying firearms on leased or owned public property, with civil penalties and attorney general enforcement for violations. Senator Hall and invited witnesses from the Texas State Rifle Association, NRA, and Texas Gun Rights argued the bill would close a loophole exposed by the State Fair of Texas gun ban and protect law-abiding Texans’ self-defense rights. Opponents, including Moms Demand Action/Everytown, said the bill would undermine event organizers’ ability to set site-specific safety rules and could increase liability and insurance costs. Public testimony was then closed and the bill was left pending. The committee next took up Senate Bill 2742, which would create civil penalties for independent school districts and officials who use public resources for electioneering, waive immunity defenses, and expand attorney general enforcement. Senator Hagan-Bood said current law bans the conduct but lacks meaningful penalties, making injunctions the only remedy. No public testimony was heard, and the bill was left pending. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 2743, also by Senator Hagan-Bood, which would allow a court to disqualify local prosecutors who refuse to prosecute election offenses and appoint the attorney general to handle the case, with a committee substitute adjusting the removal process through an adjacent-county judge. Opponents from the Texas Civil Rights Project argued the bill would undermine prosecutorial discretion and was vague and open to abuse, while a Harris County election official described past instances where alleged voter fraud cases were not pursued. After testimony, public comment was closed and SB 2743 was left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think the other point that I'm hearing.
• We sat through a three-hour hearing on this.
• We sat through a three-hour hearing on this.
• I hear that for sure, but I also hear a billion dollars is going to be saved a year by this company,
• I'll leave the hearing open for 10 minutes.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 470, which would change California’s carrier-of-last-resort rules and allow a phased transition away from copper landlines in areas deemed well served by alternative phone options. The author and AT&T argued the bill would protect consumers, preserve 911 access, require public notice and CPUC review, and direct investment toward modern fiber and emergency communications. Supporters included a wide range of business, civic, tribal, and community groups, while opponents from TURN, rural counties, labor, digital equity organizations, and local governments warned the bill could let AT&T shed service obligations too quickly, weaken protections for rural and underserved households, and harm workers. After extensive member discussion about CPUC authority, rural carveouts, labor impacts, and reinvestment, AB 470 was passed do pass as amended to Appropriations, with one no vote and one not voting, and the roll left open. The committee then took up AB 1532, a committee omnibus bill extending funding and surcharge authority for the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program and the TNC Access for All program, while also adding CPUC accountability provisions. Chair Boerner Horvath explained the bill would not raise consumer costs and would require the CPUC to appear at hearings when requested and adopt rules for commissioner attendance. There was no opposition testimony, and the bill was moved do pass and re-refer to Utilities and Energy, though the roll was left open because it had not yet reached the threshold for immediate transmission. Finally, the committee heard AB 353, the Affordable Home Internet Act of 2025, which would establish an affordability floor for home broadband for low-income Californians after the expiration of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program. Supporters said broadband costs remain too high and that families, students, and vulnerable communities need a state solution now; opponents from the wireless industry and rural county representatives argued the bill would amount to an artificial price mandate and could complicate existing rural broadband buildouts. Members generally supported the goal but raised concerns about impacts on small ISPs and rural areas, and the bill was moved forward with a motion and second while discussion continued about possible exemptions and amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill says, The bill doesn't even have an evidentiary standard.
• in our community, hearing about it from activists like Michael Rainer.
• in our community, hearing about it from activists like Michael Rainer.
• There are countless stories that I have heard that I continually hear.
• I couldn't hear you in regards to the stock piece? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Summary: The House met with a quorum present, heard prayers and ceremonial remarks, and then took up a series of returning messages from the Senate. The first major item was CS/CS/HB 1503 on computer science education and certification. Members explained that the House concurred in a Senate amendment that restored teacher certificate language, kept computer science and AI-related content in the bill, and delayed implementation to give the Department of Education time to develop curriculum. The House adopted the amendment and then passed the bill 105-0. The House also considered CS/CS/HB 1085 on local government cybersecurity. Members adopted a House amendment allowing local governments to buy into the cyber grant program even if they do not receive a grant, adding a five-year sunset and reporting provisions. The House then concurred in the Senate amendment shifting grant administration from a university to the Florida Digital Service, and passed the bill 104-1. Several other returning messages were rejected or sent back to the Senate. The House refused to concur in Senate amendments to CS/HB 351 on concurrent legislative jurisdiction over military installations and HB 6011 on reporting gifts or honoraria, as well as CS/HB 851 on professional learning for instructional and school administrative personnel. The most contentious debate came on CS/CS/HB 1471, which concerns systems of law and terrorist organizations; the Senate amendment defined “promote,” refined notice and timeline requirements, and retained references to Sharia law. Opponents argued the bill was overbroad, lacked due process and evidentiary standards, and threatened First Amendment rights, while supporters said it targeted conduct, not speech, and protected against terrorist support. The House adopted the amendment and passed the bill 80-25. The House then took up a related public records bill, CS/CS/HB 1473, which made a technical conforming change to align with HB 1471; debate focused on transparency and due process concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill says The bill doesn't even have an evidentiary standard.
• And I hear this comment all the time about running government like a business.
• people in our community, hearing about it from activists like Michael Rayner.
• community, hearing about it from activists like Michael Rayner.
• There are countless stories that I have heard that I continually hear.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, quorum calls, and introductory remarks, including recognition of former Representative Ardian Zika and law enforcement officer of the day Representative Chuck Brannan. Members also unveiled a portrait of Speaker Daniel Perez, with extended remarks praising his leadership and the institution of the House. The Speaker then explained the process for taking up returning messages from the Senate, noting that the House would consider Senate amendments to bills already passed by both chambers. The House first concurred in Senate amendments and passed CS/CS/HB 1503 on computer science education and certification, which adds computer science and artificial intelligence content to high school instruction and creates a teacher certification program, with implementation delayed to give the Department of Education time to develop curriculum. The chamber then considered CS/CS/HB 1085 on local government cybersecurity, adopting a House amendment to allow local governments to buy into the cyber grant program whether or not they receive a grant, add a five-year sunset, and keep the program under the Florida Digital Service rather than a university. The House concurred in the Senate amendment and passed the bill 104-1. Members also refused to concur in Senate amendments to CS/HB 351 on concurrent legislative jurisdiction over military installations and HB 6011 on reporting gifts or honoraria, sending both bills back to the Senate. The most extensive debate centered on CS/CS/HB 1471, which would create a process for designating domestic terrorist organizations and related restrictions. Supporters said the Senate amendment clarified the definition of “promote,” refined notice and timeline requirements, and aligned the bill with federal-style procedures; opponents argued it lacked due process, could chill speech, and gave the governor and cabinet unprecedented power without adequate evidentiary standards or judicial review. Members also debated a related public records bill, CS/CS/HB 1473, which would exempt certain records tied to the designation process; critics said the exemption would further reduce transparency and due process. Despite objections, the House adopted the amendments and passed HB 1471 by 80-25, while the public records measure was taken up as a technical companion to align with the newly amended bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill doesn't even have an evidentiary standard.
• in our community, hearing about it from activists like Michael Rayner.
• There are countless stories that I have heard that I continually hear.
• I couldn't hear you in regards to the stock piece?
• I couldn't hear you in regards to the stock piece.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a quorum present, then moved into returning messages from the Senate. Early action focused on CS/CS/HB 1503 on computer science education and certification, which would add computer science and artificial intelligence content in high school and create a K-12 teacher certificate program; after adopting a House amendment restoring certificate language and adjusting implementation timing, the House concurred in the Senate amendment and passed the bill 105-0. The chamber then took up CS/CS/HB 1085 on local government cybersecurity, adopting a House amendment to allow local governments to buy into the cyber grant program and add a five-year sunset, then concurring in the Senate amendment shifting grant administration back to the Florida Digital Service; the bill passed 104-1. The House refused to concur in Senate amendments to CS/HB 351 on concurrent legislative jurisdiction over U.S. military installations and HB 6011 on reporting gifts or honoraria, sending both back to the Senate. It also refused to concur in the Senate amendment to CS/HB 851 on professional learning for instructional and school administrative personnel, saying the Senate version expanded the bill beyond its original autism-focused scope. After a recess, the House unveiled Speaker Daniel Perez’s portrait and heard extended remarks praising his leadership, institutional reforms, and the work of House staff and members. In the second returning-message list, the House debated CS/CS/HB 1471 on systems of law and terrorist organizations. The Senate amendment clarified the definition of “promote,” refined notice and timeline provisions for terrorist organization designations, and kept references to Sharia law as an example in the foreign religious law section. Supporters argued the bill was aimed at conduct beyond speech and was intended to protect the Constitution and public safety; opponents warned it would chill free speech, target Muslim Floridians, and give the governor and cabinet unprecedented power without adequate due process. After lengthy debate, the House concurred and passed the bill 80-25. The House then took up CS/CS/HB 1473, a public records bill tied to HB 1471, and moved to concur in a technical Senate amendment aligning the records exemption with the revised structure of HB 1471.

Transcript Highlights:

• end of the hearing.
• I hear 15, but when I hear the Ilex, that's very small population.
• , pre-hearing conferences, evidentiary hearings, oral arguments.
• So our evidentiary hearings for... Any of which will depend on their individual caseload.
• So our evidentiary hearings, for example, are not necessarily held in every case, but some cases have

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Hearing none, so ordered.
• Hearing none, we'll move on to invited testimony.
• I'd like you to hear.
• Hearing none.
• Hearing none, it's so ordered. No objections? Hearing none, it's so ordered. 시청해주셔서 감사합니다!

Bills: SB1281, SB1300, SB1379, SB1451, SB1497, SB1498, SB1499

Keywords: mail theft, postal theft, package theft, identity theft, negotiable instrument, check theft, mail receptacle key, mailbox lock, postal key, delivery service, courier, USPS, United States Postal Service, fraud, property crime, elderly victims, disabled victims, identity information, rebuttable presumption, felony enhancement

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> What this has entailed is evidentiary What this has entailed is evidentiary hearings<00:08:49.600
• </c> These hearings are essentially a trial. These hearings are essentially a trial.
• </c> has now been afforded an evidentiary has now been afforded an evidentiary hearing<00:09:57.360><
• </c><00:09:59.920><c> I</c> hearing with a jury three times. I hearing with a jury three times.
• </c> the current timeline of these hearings the current timeline of these hearings under<00:10:25.519

Keywords: 00:00:06 - Call to Order/Roll Call 00:01:23 - Review of Referred Administrative Regulations 00:02:00 - Discussion of 26RS HB 485 01:00:40 - Roll Call Vote on 26RS HB 485 01:03:25 - Adjournment, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Martin with the Office of Administrative Hearings.
• Can you hear me okay, Mr. McKinney? I can hear you just fine, Your Honor. All right. Well, welcome.
• We're happy to have a hearing on that with respect to the donation. Ms.
• hearing would be warranted.
• Case, then a fact-finding evidentiary hearing would be warranted.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings held oral argument before the Legislative Ethics Board in the matter of Tara Simmons, docket 401-645, on a respondent-filed motion for summary judgment. Judge T.J. Martin identified the issues as whether Simmons violated the Ethics Act by using her legislative position for the benefit of others and by holding outside employment that conflicted with her official duties, under RCW 42.52.070 and RCW 42.52.020, and, if violations were found, what penalties or sanctions would be appropriate. The judge clarified that board staff had not filed its own summary judgment motion, only a response to Simmons’ motion. Attorney Doug McKinney argued that the complaint and board staff’s allegations were legally insufficient because they did not allege a personal benefit to Simmons, only benefits to her employer, EEC, or to others. He contended that the Ethics Act has historically required a benefit to the legislator herself, that employees do not automatically have a disqualifying interest in their employers, and that the board’s position would create a new bright-line rule and unfairly change the law as applied to Simmons. He also addressed allegations involving a contract provision, a campaign surplus donation to AEG, a subcontract dispute involving AEG and EEC, and text messages with Anthony Powers, arguing none showed a special privilege or conflict of interest for Simmons. Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisenhower, for board staff, argued the motion should be denied because the record sufficiently alleged violations of both statutes. She said Simmons’ involvement in securing funding for EEC, her employment duties involving stakeholder and legislator connections, her donation of campaign surplus funds to AEG to help secure a job for someone she knew, her role in the AEG-EEC subcontract dispute, and her text messages referencing her official capacity all supported the allegations. A board member asked whether the allegations were sufficient to show a special benefit, and Eisenhower responded that the facts were enough at the summary judgment stage. After rebuttal by McKinney, the ALJ closed the hearing and the board went into deliberations; no ruling was announced during the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative, I didn't get to hear this through the committee process.
• Eight years in a row, this is my eighth year hearing this bill, but it hasn't been eight.
• Going to lines 328, 329, is it clear that my reading of this is—can you not hear me? Okay.
• This is not a judicial process, so there is no evidentiary standard.
• There's no opportunity to be heard in a public hearing.

Summary: The House opened with prayer, a moment of silence for former member Chester Clem, the Pledge of Allegiance, and quorum verification. Members then adopted the special order report and a Rules and Ethics Committee report amending House Rule 15.3 to allow fundraising under certain circumstances during extended or special sessions. The chamber also recognized Deputy First Class Stefano Gargano as law enforcement officer of the day and several visiting groups in the gallery. On the floor, HB 1405 on a statewide project for missing persons with special needs passed unanimously, 109-0. The House then took up CS/CS/CS/SB 290, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services bill, which drew questions about surplus conservation lands and oversight by the Acquisition and Restoration Council; it passed 94-10. CS/CS/CS/HB 905, the “Fire Act” on foreign influence, foreign-country-of-concern restrictions, critical infrastructure, gifts, contracts, sister city agreements, and related ethics and criminal provisions, passed 80-20 after debate and a germane amendment was adopted over objections. The House also passed CS/CS/HB 1197 on information technology procurement and contracting, aimed at modernizing oversight of major IT projects, by 109-0. CS/CS/CS/HB 399 on land use development and development regulations passed 71-38 after extensive debate over development fees, manufactured homes, and reducing local supermajority requirements for comprehensive plan changes; an amendment to preserve Orange County’s rural boundary vote failed, and a strike-all amendment was ruled out of order. Members then adopted a technical amendment clarifying manufactured homes language. Several local bills also advanced: HB 1103 on local administration of vessel restrictions passed 109-0; HB 4051 and HB 4053 on Santa Rosa County fire protection district assessments passed 84-25 and 83-27, respectively, after compromise amendments; HB 4081 on the East Point Water and Sewer District passed 110-0; and HB 4093 on the Felsmere Water Control District passed 109-0. The transcript ended as the House moved on to HB 4095, with no final action shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, we are now back on the record on day number two of the fact-finding evidentiary hearing of
• this in-person Legislative Ethics Board fact-finding evidentiary hearing on the Capitol campus here
• Second of all, at the conclusion of yesterday's day number one of the fact-finding evidentiary hearing
• hearing in this matter.
• hearing.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The hearing resumed on day two of the Legislative Ethics Board fact-finding matter involving Representative Tara Simmons. After opening remarks and confirmation that board members had not engaged in outside research or ex parte communications, Simmons’s counsel moved to dismiss two allegations at the close of the board staff’s case: that Simmons pressured the Administrative Office of the Courts to alter a contract in favor of her employer, and that she improperly combined a legislative proviso for AEJG with a personal donation to the organization. Board staff opposed the motion, arguing the evidence showed Simmons’s legislative and private conduct were intertwined and that the board had enough evidence to require a defense. After deliberation, the board denied the motion to dismiss and proceeded to hear defense testimony. The first defense witness, Sharon Navas, testified that she met Simmons through advocacy work, later hired her at the Equity and Education Coalition (EEC), and maintained written employment policies intended to separate Simmons’s legislative role from her work for EEC. Navas said Simmons was never compensated for lobbying or legislative acts, that EEC paid her from unrestricted funds, and that Simmons did not work on the AEJG dashboard project or participate in the contract dispute with Anthony Powers and Chris Stanley. Navas described the proviso request and later contract issues as separate from Simmons’s legislative duties, and said she continued to pay invoices while the project was being completed. Simmons then testified about her background, legislative career, disability accommodations, and extensive efforts to seek ethics advice before taking outside employment or pursuing provisos. She said she repeatedly consulted House ethics counsel and reviewed prior board decisions to ensure her outside work and legislative actions were separated. Simmons described her relationship with Anthony Powers, the dashboard project, the proviso process, and her understanding that the work was distinct from her legislative role. The hearing paused for lunch after part of Simmons’s direct examination, with testimony set to continue after the break.

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, we are now back on the record for day number two in the fact-finding evidentiary hearing of
• this in-person Legislative Ethics Board fact-finding evidentiary hearing on the Capitol Campus here
• Second of all, at the conclusion of yesterday's day number one of the fact-finding evidentiary hearing
• hearing in this matter.
• hearing.

Summary: The hearing resumed in the Legislative Ethics Board matter involving Tara Simmons after the board confirmed no ex parte communications had occurred overnight. Respondent’s counsel moved to dismiss two allegations at the close of the board staff’s case: that Simmons pressured the Administrative Office of the Courts to alter a contract in favor of her employer, and that she violated ethics rules by combining legislative support for AEJG with a personal donation to the organization. Board staff opposed the motion, arguing the evidence showed Simmons’s legislative and personal dealings were intertwined. After a recess for deliberation, the board denied the motion to dismiss, and the hearing moved into the defense case. The first defense witness was Sharon Navas, executive director of the Equity and Education Coalition (EEC). Navas testified that she met Simmons in 2018, later hired her, and took steps to separate Simmons’s legislative duties from her work for EEC. She said Simmons was never paid for lobbying or legislative acts, that her compensation came from unrestricted funds, and that the organization used written ethics-compliance language and a formal scope of work. Navas also described the proviso-funded dashboard project involving Anthony Powers and Chris Stanley, testifying that Simmons was not involved in the project’s day-to-day work, did not attend the meetings about the dispute, and was not part of the alleged contract disagreement. On cross-examination, staff focused on the contract documents, the dashboard work, and whether the scope of work matched the parties’ understanding. Tara Simmons then testified in her own defense. She described her background, legislative career, disability accommodations, and extensive efforts to seek ethics guidance from House counsel and board-related materials before taking outside employment or supporting provisos. She said she relied on prior ethics advice when separating her legislative role from outside work and when seeking provisos for AEJG and EEC. Simmons also addressed her relationship with Anthony Powers, describing it as a friendship rooted in criminal justice reform work and prior collaboration. The hearing was still in the middle of Simmons’s direct testimony when the transcript excerpt ended, with no final ruling on the merits or disposition of the allegations.

Transcript Highlights:

• I like to go to every service hearing. I like to lead the service hearings. I call the names.
• I want to hear what they have to say.
• We simply go to hearing, but we're ready for hearing.
• You hear very compelling stories about the...
• I talked about the hearing.

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Counsel Oversight met with a quorum present and heard an update from Public Counsel Walt Trierweiler on the work of the Office of Public Counsel. Trierweiler described the office’s role in representing Florida utility customers in rate cases and related proceedings, including investor-owned electric, water, and wastewater matters. He emphasized the office’s use of depositions, expert witnesses, customer correspondence, and service hearings to challenge unsupported utility costs while seeking outcomes that are “fair, just, reasonable, and affordable.” A major focus of the presentation was the office’s work on large utility dockets, especially the Florida Power & Light rate case, as well as other recent cases involving Duke, TECO, Sunshine, and St. Joe. Trierweiler said the office had settled some cases but not others, had two appeals pending, and had filed motions for reconsideration where required. He also discussed storm cost recovery, affordability concerns, and the new challenge of data center tariffs and related energy and water demands. He said the office brought in new experts on affordability and data centers and was trying to get ahead of those issues through workshops and settlement efforts. Members asked questions about how customer input is gathered, how the office evaluates a fair profit for utilities, the role of settlements and counterproposals, and the impact of data centers on energy and water use. Trierweiler said customer voices come in through hearings and correspondence, that utilities are entitled to a fair return but not imprudent costs, and that the office is concerned about data center growth and its resource demands. No votes were taken, and the committee concluded its agenda and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• I now move we go out of executive session and begin the public hearing on House Bill 1647.
• Okay, but we'll hear testimony. I just have never had that experience.
• I’ll be happy to try to provide you a memo after the hearing.” “Okay. Thank you so much.”
• so we're placing a private arbitration normally handled between the insurance companies into an evidentiary
• Seeing none, that closes the hearing on House Bill 1647 with no other business before the committee.

Summary: The Insurance Committee first established a quorum and then went into executive session, where it voted House Bill 1615 and House Bill 2071 “do pass” with 11 ayes and no opposition on each bill, with one member present on the roll call. After returning to public session, the committee opened a hearing on House Bill 1647, sponsored by Representative Overcast, which was described as a fairness measure intended to prevent double recovery when insurance payments have already satisfied part of a claim. The sponsor and supporters said the bill was aimed at property damage claims and intercompany arbitration between insurers, though several members questioned whether the bill’s language was actually limited to property damage or instead reached broader collateral source issues and evidence rules. Committee members, especially Representatives Butts, Zimmerman, and Castile, pressed the sponsor on how the bill would work in practice, whether it would reduce a plaintiff’s recovery or instead affect insurer subrogation rights, and why arbitration was being addressed in an evidentiary statute. Supporters from the Missouri Insurance Coalition and other industry groups said the bill would clarify offset rules, preserve voluntary insurer-to-insurer arbitration, and prevent inconsistent court treatment of prior payments. Opponents, including attorney Blake Heath, argued the bill was drafted too broadly, did not stay confined to property damage, and was placed in the wrong statutory section because these issues are usually handled through insurer subrogation rather than in a lawsuit by the injured party. Additional support came from the Missouri State Medical Association, Associated Industries of Missouri, and the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, though some supporters also acknowledged the bill might need narrowing if the intent was property damage only. No vote was taken on House Bill 1647 during the hearing, and the committee adjourned after testimony concluded.