Transcript Highlights:

• The two bills that you're hearing today are the balance between those two needs.
• It puts us in line with other states. It puts us in line with the federal court.
• It would be on page two, after line 13, insert: Page 2, after line 13, insert Subsection G: "This section
• So let's go to page one of two, lines nine through 15, I guess, just to be clear.
• On page two of the amendment, on lines two to five, it also provides that the districts will be used

Bills: HCR41, HB11, HB227, HB243, HB278, HB335, HB424, HB454, HB455, HB492, HB623, HB641, HB660, HB708, HB719, HB940, HB1029, HB1053, HB1069, HB1077

Keywords: coupons, rebates, alcohol regulation, malt beverages, Louisiana Department of Revenue, remembrance, Charlie Kirk, state recognition, October 14, memorial day, court filings, electronic filing, letter size paper, privacy, legal procedure, recusal, district attorney, substitute attorney, appointment process, legal proceedings

Transcript Highlights:

• if we have two tiers.
• a net increase in staff working in the veteran crisis line.
• Two of them have gotten their jobs back, but one of them still hasn't.
• Both of my deployments were successful. or two combat zones.
• You didn't call the Veterans Crisis Line.

Keywords: veterans, mental health, suicide prevention, Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox Grant Program, HOPE Act, BRAVE Act, Every State Counts for Vets Mental Health Act, advocacy, legislation, mental health resources

Summary: The committee meeting focused primarily on the critical issues surrounding veterans' mental health and suicide prevention. Discussions centered on the reauthorization of essential programs aimed at providing non-clinical support services to veterans, particularly the Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grant Program. Senators emphasized the urgent need for adequate mental health resources as the suicide rate among veterans remains alarmingly high. Key testimonies were provided by various advocates and officials, illustrating both successful implementations of these programs and areas needing improvement.

Transcript Highlights:

• So actually what we're looking for in page six, line two, what we want to add is—sorry, hold on a second—my
• So, section 2, line 1, line 2.
• one uh line one uh line two<00:33:55.399> sorry<00:33:56.039> page<00:33:57.039>
• two sorry page we were looking at line two sorry page we were looking at line on<00:33:58.760>
• <00:34:33.520> 19<00:34:33.960> so line on page five yes in line 19 so line on page

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on SB 284, which would remove the requirement that wiretapping applications to a designated judge be accompanied by a written memorandum from the Department of the Attorney General. The Department of the Attorney General opposed the bill as drafted and instead proposed a new emergency-wiretap procedure allowing county prosecutors to seek immediate judicial authorization in exigent circumstances, followed by AG review and a follow-up application within 48 hours. The Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney’s office supported creating an emergency exception, citing a kidnapping case involving a missing material witness and the need to obtain live phone location data quickly, but asked that the AG be required to respond clearly within the follow-up period. The AG said the current wiretap process often arrives incomplete and noted a prior Honolulu application that was returned for more information and then abandoned. The committee also heard public testimony, including one speaker in support and another in opposition, and discussed whether the proposed emergency process should include imminent danger findings and what happens if the follow-up application is not approved. No vote or final action was taken in the transcript. The committee then took up SB 295, which increases penalties for violating temporary restraining orders and orders for protection and makes related changes. The Deputy Public Defender opposed the bill’s higher penalties, arguing that not all restraining-order cases involve domestic violence and that the measure could affect family disputes, property conflicts, custody battles, and other non-domestic situations. The Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney supported the bill, saying it would create a more uniform and efficient charging framework and that violations of court orders can be serious even when the conduct appears minor in isolation. Domestic violence advocates also supported the measure, emphasizing the need for meaningful enforcement and deterrence; one witness cited statewide data showing thousands of TRO petitions but relatively few convictions and fines. A representative from the Domestic Violence Action Center supported the bill but requested amendments to reduce unintended consequences for survivors. During discussion, the committee focused on the proposed minimum sentence, with the Domestic Violence Action Center recommending reducing it from 15 days to 5 days. The witness explained that longer minimums can create hardships such as job loss, housing instability, and child care problems, while still allowing time for survivors to access shelter and services. The committee chair indicated support for amending the bill to reflect that recommendation. The Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney also clarified that the bill is intended to address violations of already-issued protective orders after judicial review, not the initial issuance of restraining orders, and said the office supports eliminating the distinction between domestic and non-domestic protective-order violations because charging decisions are often made under time pressure. Multiple individuals and organizations signed up in support, and one witness testified in opposition. No vote or final committee action was announced in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Secretary of State is on line 3.24. The State Board of Investment is on line 3.28.
• Administrative Hearings is on line 3.29. Minute is on line 4.1.
• Secretary of State is on line 313.
• Uh Minute is on line 4.1. 3.29. Uh Minute is on line 4.1.
• Board of cosmetology examiners is on<00:04:17.519> line on line on line 10.11.<00:04:19.519>

Bills: HF2783

Keywords: state government finance, biennial budget, appropriations, Minnesota Management and Budget, Healthy Aging Subcabinet, Office of Healthy Aging, older adults, aging policy, long-term care, caregivers, public health, Medicaid fraud, medical assistance fraud, attorney general subpoena power, fraud enforcement, business filing fraud, Secretary of State, deceptive mailings, consumer protection, certified public accountant

Transcript Highlights:

• During two special sessions on property insurance in 2022, the Legislature created two new temporary
• Students who leave the school with two million, close to me, two million, close to $3 million in scholarship
• So, it is just in line; it’s not in line.
• specific line items in the budget.
• Two of those were for failed implants. The other two became my twin boys.

Bills: HJR 99, HB 1399, HB 1400, HB 1094, HB 365, HB 1109, HB 647, HCR 35, SB 14, HB 12, HB 1522, HB 422, HB 675, HB 204, HB 748, HB 912, HJR 99, HB 1399, HB 1400, HB 1094, HB 365, HB 1109, HB 647, HCR 35, HCR 123, HCR 124, HR 57, HR 87, HR 111, HR 228, HR 230, HR 322, HR 624, HR 625, HR 626, HR 627, HR 628, HR 630, HR 631, HR 634, HR 635, HR 636, HR 637, HR 638, HR 639, HR 640, HR 645, HR 646, HR 648, HR 649, HR 651, HR 652, HR 653, HR 654, HR 664, HR 665, HR 668, HR 675, HR 676, HR 678, HR 679, HR 680, HR 683, HR 686, HR 688, HR 689, HR 694, HR 695, HR 697, HR 698, HR 699, HR 472, HR 622, HR 632, HR 633, HR 643, HR 655, HR 657, HR 660, HR 661, HR 662, HR 663, HR 667, HR 670, HR 674, HR 681, HR 682, HR 696

Keywords: animal feed, tax exemption, ad valorem taxation, retail, constitutional amendment, retail sale, tangible personal property, Texas tax code, groundwater, water conservation, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, innovation fund, local conservation districts, transportation protection agreement, funeral services, insurance exemption, regulation, deceased transportation, HB 365

Transcript Highlights:

• Cruise Lines holding Sandra Weir. Cruise Lines holding Sandra Weir.
• two? two? >> Oh<00:50:07.359> page<00:50:07.760> two. >> Oh page two.
• >> Oh page two. >> Page<00:50:08.800> two.
• However, we will make the changes on page two and line six, where we will be deleting these words: “appropriations
• On page two, line six, we will be deleting these words: “appropriations made by the legislature for deposit

Bills: HB1709, HB2195, HB2023, HB2031, HB2033, HB1937, HB2586, HB2575, HB2038, HB2030

Keywords: water carriers, transportation, public utility, Department of Transportation, liability, agricultural rates, certificates of convenience, cruise ship, passenger head fee, harbor, capital improvement, funding, environmental impact, active intelligent speed assistance, intelligent speed assistance, speed limiter, speed limiting device, speed governor, vehicle telematics, traffic safety

Summary: The joint committees on Transportation, Labor and Technology, and later Transportation and Economic Development and Tourism, heard several bills. SB 2573 would allow administrative driver’s license revocation hearings to be held by interactive conference technology such as Zoom and permit electronic exchange of evidence. The chief adjudicator for the ADLRO supported it as a non-mandatory option that has worked well since 2021, improving attendance and saving time and money; DOT also supported it. The committees voted to pass SB 2573 with technical, non-substantive amendments. SB 3215 would make permanent the requirement that securing mooring lines at commercial docks be performed by labor subject to collective bargaining by repealing the sunset date in existing harbor safety law. DOT did not submit testimony, and the chair noted support from longshore labor. The committees voted to pass SB 3215 unamended. The committees also heard SB 2693, which authorizes $15 million in general obligation bonds for planning, design, and construction of a 50,000-square-foot aerospace hangar and related facilities at Hilo International Airport. A Phoenix Space executive testified in support, saying Hawaii and Hilo have geographic advantages and that the project could support aerospace investment and jobs; several other organizations and individuals submitted supportive testimony. Committee members questioned whether federal matching funds or airport capacity existed, and DOT said it had no assurance of federal participation and would need to check on capacity and potential users. The hearing then moved to SB 2698, which would create a cruise ship special fund and impose a per-passenger head fee on cruise ships docking in state commercial harbors while repealing the existing cruise ship TAT framework effective January 1, 2026. DOT supported the bill but requested amendments to clarify that the new fee is in addition to existing passenger, port entry, and dockage fees and to raise the fee from $6.50 to $10; DOT said the higher amount would better fund harbor improvements such as shore power. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings testified in support but said the added fee would significantly increase costs, while a local ship supply business supported the cruise industry and opposed the TAT approach, saying cruise activity benefits local farmers and jobs. No final vote on SB 2698 was taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• As you can line for a long time.
• So lines, it becomes quite a hindrance.
• January 1st, 2027, which is in line with January 1st, 2027, which is in line with the<01:09:36.400>
• just a quick question on line nine. just a quick question on line nine.
• So right now I've got two left in me. Uh, two left committee of conference.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, page two, line six brings in the financial assurance requirements from RSA 12E and brings it into
• Page two, line 11 is the provision that brings in the regulatory or the rulemaking authority for the
• one and two on line 8 are simply one and two on line 8 are simply definitional,<00:20:47.919>
• Page two, line<00:21:32.159> 11<00:21:33.120> is<00:21:33.280> is<00:21:33.760><
• <00:21:55.120> line<00:21:56.240> uh six um page two line uh six um page two line uh

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The system will figure out somewhere along the line.
• Leave that in and then just do those other two amendments.
• other $100 million for the carryover line of credit. ...million line of credit and the other $100 million
• for the carryover line of credit.
• And then all we did in 22 is a line item transfer.

Bills: HB1329

Keywords: government spending database, public expenditure transparency, open data, government transparency, school district spending, state spending, local government finance, education finance, budget database, expenditure reporting, salary transparency, benefits data, public records, Legislative Management study, North Dakota, school board training, superintendent, principal, business manager, higher education spending

Summary: The division first discussed Senate Bill 1540 and related amendments involving implementation mechanics, procurement exemptions, and an emergency clause. Bank of North Dakota representatives explained that, based on a timeline review with DPI, the project would be very difficult to implement for the 2026-27 school year without exemptions from state purchasing and IT oversight rules and without an emergency clause; they said the normal procurement process could take about 240 days and that a 15-month implementation window would likely push the start to 2027-28 if those changes were not adopted. Members also raised a separate policy question about a criminal penalty placeholder in the bill, and the committee agreed that the sentence was unnecessary and should be removed. The committee deferred means-testing questions and fiscal-note issues to the next morning, with the understanding that the bill would be drafted in a way that made it workable if it advanced. The committee then turned to the water budget bill and reviewed the latest amended version, which included changes to the Water Topics process, Southwest Pipeline line of credit provisions, Red River supply funding, Mouse River project amounts, general water funding, studies on Missouri River intakes and water governance/finance, and a carryover/transfer adjustment. Chris Cattermas of the Department of Water Resources said most of the carryover funds were already obligated, with the largest unobligated amount in flood control. After review, Senator Thomas moved a do-pass recommendation on the bill as amended, the motion was seconded, and the committee approved it unanimously. The chair noted that other bills would be taken up the next morning, including 1013, 1014, and 1540.

Transcript Highlights:

• John Page, page two, line 20 through 25. one of your mark your people they come one of your mark your
• John Page, page two, line 20 through 25. Cost of doing business.
• John Page, page two, line 20 through 25. The word fee is what gets me.
• Oh, it's page two, line four—that's just the money flow. That's just the money flow.
• Representative oration post consumer products to per to cover where—page two, line 20.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The discussion focused on a cannabis legalization/regulation bill and whether it should be retained for further study or moved forward. Members debated the fiscal impact, with one side emphasizing that the bill would cost about $7.1 million in the first two years before generating revenue, while supporters argued the House should make a statement in favor of legalization despite likely opposition from the Senate and governor. There was also disagreement over strategy: some said retaining the bill until closer to the next election would give the issue more visibility, while others said delaying would only avoid sending a bill the Senate was unlikely to take up anyway. A major point of contention was whether cannabis should be regulated by a new cannabis commission or placed under the Liquor Commission. Supporters of the Liquor Commission argued it already has enforcement infrastructure, especially for age restrictions, and could handle cannabis more efficiently without creating a new bureaucracy. Opponents said cannabis is a different industry that would require specialized expertise, and they objected to expanding the Liquor Commission, which they described as unpopular and costly. The committee also discussed past versions of the bill, including concerns about limited licenses and the perception that the earlier approach favored large businesses. Members reviewed specific provisions such as licensing fees, THC limits, and cultivation categories. One member noted a $10,000 fee for retail cannabis stores and cannabis product manufacturers authorized to perform extractions, while a smaller tier-one cultivator fee was described as a lower-cost option for small growers. There was also discussion of whether the bill would allow sales through general retail outlets or only dedicated cannabis stores, and whether plants and seeds were covered. No final vote or action was clearly recorded in the excerpt, but the main procedural question was whether to retain the bill for more work or advance it as written.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to move lines 8 through 11 on page one in the preamble to page two, line 15, to read, prompt
• We're going to move lines 8 through 11 on page one in the preamble to page two, line 15, to read, prompt
• c><00:03:53.840> page<00:03:54.159> two,<00:03:54.560> line<00:03:54.879> 15<
• to page two, line 15 to read, prompt<00:03:56.000> debriefing.
• line 16 to written on page two, line 16 to hopefully<00:07:25.520> address<00:07:25.840> their

Bills: SB2064, SB2662, SB2862, SB2343, SB2075, SB2781, SB2927, SB3068, SB3015, SB2929, SB2938, SB3230, SB3249, SB3332, SB3216

Keywords: state architect, construction projects, design approvals, building codes, state agency oversight, government accountability, external consultants, procurement reform, cost efficiency, in-house expertise, gubernatorial appointments, senate confirmation, executive branch, accountability, civil service, SB2343, Hawaii Legislature, regular session, lengthened session, continuous legislature

Summary: The committee met on February 12, 2026, to take decision-making on measures previously heard earlier in the month. Several bills were deferred indefinitely or set for later discussion, including SB 2064 on the Office of the State Architect, SB 3068 on procurement, and SB 3216 after its contents were moved into another measure. SB 2862 on gubernatorial appointments, SB 2781, and SB 315 were all deferred to Tuesday, February 17 at 3 p.m. in Room 225 for further work. The committee also noted that if technical problems interrupted the meeting, it would reconvene later for outstanding decision-making. The committee passed SB 2343 on the Legislature with amendments incorporating language from SB 3216, technical changes, and a defective date of 2525. SB 2075 was advanced as a Senate draft 1 after amendments responding to constitutional concerns raised by the attorney general and SPO. SB 2927 on procurement was also passed with amendments clarifying debriefing requirements and adding technical changes, and SB 2938 on search and rescue was amended to place the position in Hima rather than the Governor’s office before being adopted. SB 3249 on procurement protests was amended to remove the term "frivolous," reduce the forfeiture to half the bond amount, and note unresolved issues, then adopted. The committee also took up SB 3332 on state-funded travel, amending it to remove certain lines, report travel by position number to protect confidentiality, remove subsection G, and add a defective date of 2525; it was adopted. SB 2929 on public notice was amended into a pilot project for counties with populations between 100,000 and 175,000, with a year-end report to the Legislature, and was adopted. Later, the committee returned to SB 2094 on environmental action levels, heard testimony from the Department of Health in support of its current scientific process and from an environmental caucus witness in strong support of the bill’s transparency and petition provisions, and then deferred decision-making to February 17 at 3 p.m. in Room 225. In the joint hearing portion, SB 3233 on agricultural workforce housing drew generally supportive testimony from ADC, the Farm Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce, the Hawaii Farmers Union, and the State Procurement Office, with concerns focused on clarity, flexibility for smaller farms, and avoiding concentration of benefits in one large operation. The committee ultimately recommended passing SB 3233 with the State Procurement Office’s clarifying amendments and the Hawaii Farmers Union’s amendment to ensure workforce housing incentives benefit multiple farmers, and the measure was adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:10:57.760> 23<00:10:59.040> sert page four after line 23 sert page four after line
• two, nose 55, excused for conflict one. two, nose 55, excused for conflict one.
• 1437 two years ago, 1437 two years ago, 1437 people<00:46:15.760> Wyoming<00:46:16.319>
• Chairman, um, just very simply, if you go to page two, and it's repeated another twice on page two, is
• amendment number one, page three, line amendment number one, page three, line 19. 19. 19.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I get two questions, but piggybacking in, I think.
• So the company in Springfield, CRRC, that had been the supplier of Red, Orange Line, and Red Line cars
• Yes, I think two related items there.
• And this may be—there are two questions, actually, that come to my mind.
• And this may be, there are two questions actually that come to my mind.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets held a public hearing on H. 5279, a bill financing long-term improvements to municipal roads and bridges. MassDOT and A&F testified in support, describing the bill as a more than $5 billion transportation bond package centered on a four-year, $1.2 billion Chapter 90 authorization, plus funding for MBTA rail reliability and modernization, housing-related transportation improvements, a new DCR/MassDOT PRISM program for parkways and other DCR assets, and reauthorizations of the Municipal Pavement Program, Shared Streets and Spaces, and highway programs. They said the bill would support safety, resilience, housing production, and multimodal transportation, and noted that some bonds could be issued as special obligation bonds backed by the Commonwealth Transportation Fund and Fair Share revenues. Committee members asked about the size and structure of the authorizations, the federal match for highway projects, the source of MBTA vehicle procurement, bridge repair needs, and whether the housing-related funds could be used flexibly for items like sidewalks, bike lanes, bus stops, and other local transportation improvements. Administration witnesses said the bill is intended as a temporary refill of existing programs until a larger transportation bond bill is filed next session, that the federal-aid line includes the full spending authority while the state only borrows the 20% match, and that the housing-related program is deliberately broad and not limited to MBTA communities. They also said Chapter 90 includes a road-mile component that especially helps rural communities and that preservation and safety are built into the programs. The Massachusetts Municipal Association also testified in strong support, emphasizing that Chapter 90 is the most important tool municipalities have to maintain the roughly 30,000 miles of local roads and bridges they are responsible for. MMA urged timely passage before construction season and praised the continued $300 million Chapter 90 level, especially the $100 million road-mile distribution that helps communities with large road networks and smaller populations. No votes were taken on the bill, and the hearing concluded with adjournment after testimony ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that covers section two.
• testimony to around two minutes.
• testimony to around two minutes.
• > page<00:53:27.680> six<00:53:28.400> line uh page six line uh page six line eight
• two years lining<01:37:52.560> up<01:37:52.760> the<01:37:52.920> permits lining

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll do no more than three in the room and two online, two minutes each.
• On page 7, line 13, we know that recoverable costs include, and then we list two categories of recoverable
• I have two experts with me.
• I have two experts with me.
• And Angela, it looks like that's on page two of the bill, line 6 through 8.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, it's in two parts of the bill. If we look, it's page five, line nine through 13.
• page seven, line four. page seven, line four.
• So, page five starting at line nine through line 13.
• It's on page two, line 28.
• at line line 148, that's So, if you look at line line 148, that's where<03:01:19.600> the<03:01

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They're actually one and two; two of them are one and two on my list. Okay.
• Is it two minutes, or is it two minutes? Okay.
• we have two sentences or one sentence and two lines that greatly affects my industry, and we also believe
• Kolodin, I'd be happy to continue to discuss a solution for those two lines. Thank you.
• I want to zero in on two issues, and the first is most important: on line 22 of the bill, the section

Bills: HB2009, HB2022, HCM2001, HCM2002, HCM2004, HCR2001, HM2001, HM2004

Keywords: campaign contributions, foreign contributions, constitutional amendments, public disclosure, Arizona Revised Statutes, elections, voter registration, provisional ballots, primary election, voter participation, Muslim Brotherhood, terrorism, foreign terrorist organization, national security, Islamist extremism, Congress, Arizona, domestic security, CAIR, terrorist organization

Summary: The committee met to hear several measures, beginning with HCM 2001 and HCM 2002, both memorials urging Congress to review and potentially designate the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR as foreign terrorist organizations. Supporters argued the groups have documented ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood’s stated goal of undermining Western civilization, citing the Holy Land Foundation case, FBI concerns, and testimony from national-security advocates. Opponents, including CAIR representatives, Muslim community members, and civil-rights advocates, said the memorials relied on guilt by association, would stigmatize Muslims, and lacked a factual or legal basis; they emphasized CAIR’s civil-rights work and warned of First Amendment concerns and community harm. After extensive debate and questions about the relationship between national and Arizona CAIR entities, the committee approved HCM 2001 and HCM 2002 on 4-3 votes, with members on both sides explaining their votes at length. Supporters framed the measures as simple requests to Congress based on existing federal findings, while opponents called them political theater and discriminatory. The committee then recessed briefly. When the committee returned, it heard HB 2009, which would prohibit committees primarily organized to influence constitutional amendments from accepting foreign national contributions and require donor verification and disclosure of out-of-state funding. The sponsor said the bill is meant to help voters understand outside influence on Arizona constitutional initiatives and suggested it could be broadened to all ballot measures. The bill passed 4-3. The committee then took up HCR 2001, a proposed constitutional amendment on elections that would limit voting to U.S. citizens, ban foreign contributions to candidate and ballot measure campaigns, require government-issued ID, and adjust early voting and mail-ballot rules. A late amendment clarified that the citizenship requirement applies to primary, general, and municipal elections, set early voting to end the Friday before an election, and refined mail-ballot rules while preserving federal overseas military voting requirements. The sponsor argued the measure would make Arizona elections more secure and efficient, while critics said it would create barriers and longer lines. The transcript cuts off during sponsor questioning on the amendment and ballot-access provisions.

Transcript Highlights:

• line 20. line 20.
• Um, page two, lines 13 through 15. And then page three, the top of page three.
• Um page two,<01:10:23.120> lines<01:10:23.600> 13<01:10:24.080> through<01:10:24.400
• Plenty of time. and it had those two two paragraphs. and it had those two two paragraphs.
• any fix page two line six including any fix page two line six including any entity<01:27:52.400><

Bills: HB0070, HB0043, HB0103, HB0157, HB0092, SF0092

Keywords: foreign censorship, digital innovation, constitutional rights, Wyoming GRANITE Act, extraterritorial laws, civil actions, speech protection, legal jurisdiction, joint liability, money laundering, illegal investment, financial institutions, criminal activity, Wyoming legislation, First Amendment, free speech, lawsuits, immunity, public participation, strategic lawsuits

Transcript Highlights:

• So we have two bills.
• is going to be second in house file two is going to be second in line<00:00:52.840> but<00:00:
• /c> through the bill line by line by line through the bill line by line by line and<00:40:24.560>
• Representative Anderson, lines 2.115 to 2.17 and lines 38 to 39. I can read them if you'd like.
• Representative Anderson, lines 2.115 to 2.17 and lines 38 to 39. I can read them if you'd like.

Bills: HF1, HF2

Keywords: Office of Inspector General, inspector general, legislative audit, fraud prevention, waste and abuse, public funds, grant oversight, state grants, grant management, whistleblower protection, retaliation, subpoena power, data practices, government transparency, accountability, law enforcement referrals, sanctions, debarment, payment withholding, public assistance fraud

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it's line seven on page two. Thank you. Was that the only place?
• <00:56:37.359> page think it's line seven on page two page think it's line seven on page two
• page two<00:56:37.920> line two line two line seven<00:56:40.000> thank<00:56:40.319><
• <01:07:54.319> line<01:07:54.599> 17 On page two, line 35, we took out the definition
• /c><01:08:41.799> out services on page two line 35 we took out services on page two line 35 we

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Education Policy and Administration Committee heard testimony on HB 222, which would repeal the requirement that a chartered public school and the resident school district sign a memorandum of understanding on how students with disabilities will receive special education services. The prime sponsor, Rep. Peggy Balboni, said the bill was requested by the New Hampshire Association of Special Education Administrators and the New Hampshire Alliance for Public Charter Schools. She argued that federal and state law already require districts to provide FAPE and that the MOU requirement has created extra work, legal costs, and delays without improving services. She said many MOUs remain unsigned, but students are still receiving services and complaint numbers have not changed. Rep. Mooney also supported repeal, calling the MOU duplicative and impractical because IEPs and 504 plans already govern services. Testimony from Jane B. Brulu of the special education administrators’ association and Beth McLure of the charter schools alliance echoed that view, saying the MOU has not helped students, has added hours of work and legal fees, and has mostly been a source of disputes over funding and service costs. McLure said her school has worked with more than 15 districts and has always been able to reach agreements, though the first year of the requirement took substantial time and money. Committee members asked about the original purpose of the law, unsigned MOUs, and whether disputes could be resolved without the requirement. A representative from the Department of Education said the MOU was originally proposed to address reports that some students were not getting services on time and to provide some oversight, but the department has no authority to order charter schools or districts to agree and no appeal process if they cannot. The department also said it does not currently audit charter school special education services because it lacks authority to monitor charter schools directly, and it urged the committee to consider some alternative oversight if the MOU requirement is repealed. The hearing on HB 222 was then closed, and the committee announced it would begin the hearing on HB 699 after a short break.