Transcript Highlights:

• I believe that parents are wanting to get information related to vaccinations and different information
• or received information or anything of that nature.
• I have some information on that, too.
• my child, then I don't need any information... ...to vaccinate my child, then I don't need any information
• But we share space, we share air, and we share responsibility.

Bills: S1082, S1168, S1756, S1156, S1480

Keywords: provider disputes, health plan, dispute resolution, Medicare, Medicaid, healthcare regulation, background screening, athletic coaches, youth sports, criminal history, expungement, Florida statutes, medical freedom, vaccination, ivermectin, healthcare practitioner liability, immunization exemptions, ambulatory surgical centers, patient safety, licensure

Summary: The committee took up several health-related bills. SB 1082, on a statewide provider and health plan claim dispute resolution program, was presented as a way to let providers and insurers use the federal independent dispute resolution process for emergency out-of-network claims under state-regulated commercial plans. A late-filed amendment clarified when providers and health plans could access the state program, and the bill was reported favorably as a committee substitute. SB 1168, which would centralize background screening clearinghouse functions at the Agency for Health Care Administration, also passed as amended after an amendment requiring sealed and expunged records to be included in screenings for qualified entities. Supporters said centralization would improve turnaround times, reduce duplication, and save costs; the sponsor said the bill also addresses coaches’ background screening language from last session. The committee then approved SB 1156, which moves ambulatory surgery center regulation out of the hospital-focused chapter of law into a standalone section, and SB 1480, as amended by a strike-all, which would grandfather certain temporary certificate holders practicing in areas of critical need if federal designation changes affect those areas. Testimony on SB 1480 emphasized continuity of care for patients in underserved communities, and the bill was reported favorably. The final and most heavily debated measure was SB 1756 on medical freedom, which would require state-approved educational materials on childhood vaccines, require practitioners to provide those materials and alternative schedules before vaccination, expand school immunization exemptions to include conscience-based objections, clarify that the Surgeon General cannot order vaccination during a public health emergency, and authorize pharmacists to provide ivermectin behind the counter without a prescription with written information and safeguards. The sponsor argued the bill strengthens parental choice and informed consent. Committee members raised concerns about vaccine-preventable disease risks, immunocompromised children, school outbreaks, and the impact of adding a new exemption. A Department of Health representative said the department would need to provide details on the history of exemption consultations and noted that removing the earlier consultation requirement had not been shown to increase outbreaks. The committee adopted a friendly amendment to give physicians the same liability protection as pharmacists for ivermectin dispensing, but rejected a substitute amendment that would have required a consultation for exemption requests. Public testimony was overwhelmingly opposed to the bill, with physicians, pediatric specialists, cancer advocates, parents of immunocompromised children, and public health groups warning that it would lower vaccination rates and endanger vulnerable Floridians. The bill remained pending after testimony, with the committee continuing to hear public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• By confidential, we mean that we will never share any information we discuss with you with anyone else
• And by neutral, we mean we share just information that can assist you in doing your job.
• c> discuss never share any information we discuss never share any information we discuss with<00:
• that mean we share uh just information that mean we share uh just information that it<00:02:07.600
• <00:09:55.640> is sure that that information is sure that that information is captured<00:

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Capital Investment Committee met on January 16 for an informational overview on state bonding and capital investment. House Research analyst Chelsea Griffin and House Fiscal analyst Andrew Lee explained the nonpartisan roles of their offices and then walked members through the basics of Minnesota bonding: how bonds are issued and repaid, how they are categorized, and the main legal authorities governing state general obligation bonds, including the state constitution, Minnesota statutes, and federal tax law. Griffin emphasized that state GO bond proceeds must be used for a public purpose, for a purpose authorized in the constitution, as specifically described in law, and must mature within 20 years. She also noted that state GO bonding is typically originated in the House and that capital projects financed with state GO bonds generally require a three-fifths vote in each chamber. The presentation also covered practical limits and requirements on bonding projects, including the distinction between state and local GO bonding, the role of bond counsel, restrictions on bond-financed property, the prohibition on reimbursing already-paid costs, and the full funding and non-state match requirements. In response to member questions, Griffin clarified that the full funding requirement in section 16A.502 means a project must be fully funded before the appropriation is available, while section 16A.86 reflects an expectation that local governments provide about half the financing for local projects, though the legislature can choose to fund more than half or waive a local match. She also said she did not believe a bill to make the 50 percent match requirement statutory passed last session. Lee then began a spreadsheet-based overview of the 2023 capital budget laws, explaining how capital investment spreadsheets are organized and how different fund types appear in the documents. He highlighted examples such as University of Minnesota projects funded with GO bonds and Minnesota State projects using user financing, where the system contributes a share of project costs from non-state sources such as tuition or system revenues. The committee did not take any votes or formal actions during this informational meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Information.
• And if there's more that we don't know, then please share that information if you hear something where
• Definitely getting that information out to those that drastically need to know that that information
• got people and information.
• Definitely getting that information out to those that drastically need to know that that information

Summary: The committee heard a broad public safety budget hearing focused on youth justice funding, probation incentive grants, and disaster response and recovery. On the youth justice item, the Office of Youth and Community Restoration described a proposed change to the JJRBG funding formula that would shift resources away from a DJJ-based measure and toward county youth population, serious offenses, and step-down placements in less restrictive programs. Members asked about data on Native American youth; OYCR said statewide data are limited, but its SYTF data show about 1% of youth in secure youth treatment facilities were Native in 2024. The Department of Finance had no objections, and the item was discussed as a way to support alternatives to long-term incarceration. The committee then reviewed the community corrections performance incentive program for county probation departments. The Department of Finance proposed stabilizing the program with a maintenance payment, updating the performance baseline, and adding a growth factor; the LAO agreed the formula needed changes but recommended using 2022-23 data instead of 2021-23, using marginal rather than average cost assumptions, rejecting the growth payment and minimum guarantee, and adding stronger oversight through the BSCC. Finance said it was open to some technical changes but opposed a new BSCC audit framework, noting Judicial Council already surveys probation departments and that evidence-based practice use has increased over time. Members and staff indicated the proposal still needed further work. A major portion of the hearing focused on the January 2025 Southern California wildfires and state disaster response. A resident of Altadena gave emotional testimony about evacuation failures, loss of home, and the need for accountability. LAO and Cal OES outlined the disaster response and recovery system, including mutual aid, alert and warning, debris removal, FEMA and state funding streams, and the long timeline for reimbursement. Cal OES said it had pre-positioned resources, temporarily took over the county’s wireless emergency alert function for about three weeks, coordinated debris removal and recovery operations, and had already allocated more than $286 million in state funds. Officials also discussed the 100% federal cost share for emergency work for 180 days and the uncertainty created by changing federal processes and the cancellation of the BRIC resilience program. The committee also heard two smaller Cal OES items: a request to reappropriate about $22 million for the law enforcement mutual aid reimbursement program, which the LAO said should be placed in statute with clearer goals and reporting, and an update on Victims of Crime Act funding, where Cal OES said federal VOCA allocations have fallen sharply and that roughly $224 million would be needed to maintain current service levels if federal funding does not improve. Public comment included a request for funding to expand datacasting and emergency alert receivers for wildfire and earthquake warning.

Transcript Highlights:

• Errors were made when the rehire information was entered into ACEs.
• Chair, that concludes the findings for Transformation and Shared Services. Mr.
• James Caldwell, Chief Fiscal Officer, Shared Administrative Services.
• Courtney Trailer, Chief of Staff, Shared Administrative Services. Thank you.
• And are we also exploring the possibility of being able to share vehicles?

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes and then heard audit reports from Tom Bullington. For the Department of Public Safety FY24 audit, two findings were presented: a duplicate vendor payment of nearly $3,700 that was later recouped, and a $2.5 million collateral deficiency tied to bank deposits that exceeded FDIC coverage because securities were not properly pledged to the State Police. Agency representatives from Arkansas State Police and the Department of Public Safety answered questions, and members discussed how the collateral requirement works before the report was filed without objection. The committee then reviewed the Department of Transformation and Shared Services FY24 audit, which contained five findings. These included an $800 career service overpayment caused by incorrect rehire data, delayed deactivation and inaccurate listing of fixed assets including stolen cameras, a double count of more than $940,000 in year-end cash records, $10.3 million in health claims that should have been recorded as fiscal year 2024 payables, and repeated deficiencies in vehicle mileage logs. Agency officials said the stolen cameras were recovered through restitution, and they described corrective steps for asset tracking, cash reporting, and vehicle logs. Members asked detailed questions about the vehicle log issues and the planned statewide GPS/telematics rollout. Shared Administrative Services said it is negotiating a vendor contract, expects to implement the system first in its own department, and aims to use GPS, geofencing, alerts, and WEX fuel-card data to improve oversight while preserving privacy. The committee also discussed possible future vehicle sharing across agencies, but no action was taken beyond filing the report. The meeting adjourned after announcing the next meeting date.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, the agency does maintain and collect information.
• It will take time to gather and compile the Medicaid hearing information.
• Unless you have really good news to share today.
• Chair: You're welcome to share any good news or not; please update the staff.
• Most of us share that desire.

Summary: The Health Facilities Subcommittee met to receive implementation updates from the Agency for Health Care Administration on three bills passed in prior sessions. First, Deputy Secretary Brian Meyer reported on the transfer of the Children’s Medical Services managed care plan from the Department of Health to AHCA under HB 1085. He said the move was administrative only, with no change to enrollment, providers, services, or clinical eligibility functions, and that it was intended to create efficiencies by aligning procurement and shifting staff resources between agencies. Members then questioned AHCA about reports of reductions in private duty nursing and therapy services for medically fragile children, including concerns about appeals, provider credentialing, and whether families were losing services or being transitioned appropriately. AHCA said it was reviewing denials, monitoring the plan, and using contractual remedies while focusing on maintaining access for members. The committee also reviewed implementation of a bill creating permanent Medicaid eligibility for individuals with permanent disabilities. AHCA staff explained that the agency had submitted a federal 1115 waiver request after public comment and stakeholder meetings, but CMS had indicated it did not anticipate approving the requested authority. Members pressed AHCA on why the waiver was submitted later than the bill’s directive date and on whether the delay was avoidable. AHCA said the waiver was complex and required review, drafting, and public input, and noted that DCF already has a specialized unit to help with redeterminations while the agencies work on operational changes. The committee discussed the practical impact on families who struggle with annual eligibility renewals and the need for clearer communication and faster follow-up from the agency. Finally, AHCA presented on the home health aide program for medically fragile children and related Medicaid eligibility changes. The agency described the 2023 law that created a family caregiver provider type and the 2025 changes that increased the hourly rate, expanded hours, reduced training requirements, and removed caregiver earnings from Medicaid eligibility calculations, subject to federal approval. AHCA said it had completed state public comment, submitted the waiver amendment to CMS, and was awaiting federal action. Members raised concerns that some families may have enrolled or begun work before the eligibility fix was in place and may have lost benefits, especially in Broward County. AHCA said it would work with affected families and plans, review outreach through DCF and the health plans, and continue rulemaking, system updates, and provider training. The meeting ended with the chair noting that the committee had received the updates and adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• ANOTHER SUMMIT TAKE AWAY WAS THE SHARING OF INFORMATION ABOUT INSTITUTIONS THAT THE SECTORS HAVE IN COMMON
• IS TO SEE HOW THAT SHARING OF INFORMATION OCCURS.
• THIS REQUIRES THE SHARING INFORMATION FOR THREAT MANAGEMENT PROCESSES REGARDLESS OF WHO WE WERE.
• IT REQUIRED BAKER ACT RECEIVING FACILITIES TO SHARE INFORMATION WITH THREAT MANAGEMENT TEAMS.
• IN THERE AND TO HAVE INFORMATION FOLLOW US.

Transcript Highlights:

• We can follow up with that information. Okay. Thank you.
• We can follow up with that information. Okay, thank you.
• And so I just wanted to just share that.
• So first that—any information on that?
• I flew in to share a story why COAP is so important.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Hospitals must report certain information to DOH related to financial information such as expenses, bill
• informed health care choices.
• , and other similar information.
• , and other similar information.
• and personal identifying information and personal, personally identifying information and personnel

Summary: At the May 14, 2025 JLARC meeting, members approved the January 9 minutes and adopted the 2025–27 biennial work plan with a minor typo correction. Staff reviewed the new work plan studies, including a drug take-back program fee/expenditure review due in December 2025 and a state energy performance standard compliance review due in June 2027, and noted JLARC’s recent session activity, including several bills passed related to JLARC work and recommendations. The committee then heard a preliminary cannabis market study showing Washington businesses likely produced two to three times more cannabis than retailers sold in 2023. Staff and RAND said LCB’s data systems are incomplete and unreliable, limiting regulation, tax verification, and diversion tracking; they recommended that LCB submit a plan by year-end for collecting accurate data by the end of 2026. Members and LCB discussed the long timeline for a new traceability system, the causes of missing sales and weight data, overproduction, diversion, and the social equity program’s effect on producer licenses. JLARC also presented a preliminary hospital oversight report concluding that the Department of Health is late on many hospital inspections, does not verify third-party inspection standards, does not review adverse health event correction plans, and could make hospital data more accessible. The committee discussed fee funding, language access, and inspection timing, and DOH said it would work on a strategic plan and continue coordinating with JLARC. Members also heard a preliminary report on the public records survivor exemption, which found agencies are using it but need more guidance; JLARC recommended keeping the exemption and having the Attorney General provide additional training. Finally, the committee approved the DDA processes and staffing final report for distribution, which recommended performance metrics, stronger data quality controls, and workforce planning; DDA concurred. JLARC also introduced proposed study questions for a future DCYF juvenile rehabilitation review focused on safety, security, programs, staffing, education, and contraband, and the meeting adjourned after members asked about scope and facility conditions.

Transcript Highlights:

• You've provided information. So they technically have requested their information to be moved.
• There are federal rules that regulate how this information can be shared, and there's state rules on
• this information.
• There'd be probably breaking a half dozen state laws for sharing information, making requests that are
• We are extremely concerned with the DMV's plan to share Californians' information with AMVA pursuant

Summary: The committee first heard a DMV budget presentation on the state-to-state verification system required for Real ID compliance and the Digital Experience Platform (DXP) modernization project. DMV officials said the state-to-state system is a pointer-based exchange used when a person applies for a license in another state, with only limited identifying data shared initially and the full driver history sent only after a qualified request. Members raised concerns about privacy, possible misuse by other states or federal actors, notification to Californians, hacking, and whether California could detect or stop abusive access. DMV said it can monitor requests, see patterns of access, work with AAMVA and legal counsel, and seek to block or challenge misuse; LAO said California is in a difficult position and should consider guardrails rather than opt out. On DXP, DMV said the project is on its revised schedule and budget, occupational licensing is complete, vehicle registration is expected by the end of calendar year 2026, and the full system should be finished by fiscal year 2028-29, with phased rollout and reappropriated funding to keep costs controlled. The committee then heard from the California High-Speed Rail Office of Inspector General on a trailer bill and AB 1608. The Inspector General said current law does not clearly authorize public reports or establish a framework for retaining and disclosing work papers, and the proposed trailer bill would create that framework while also adding authority to hire needed classifications and purchase goods and services. He also said the office needs a clearer statutory definition of “proposed agreements” and notice when the High-Speed Rail Authority is reviewing them, so the office can review contracts and related agreements effectively. LAO raised no concerns with the trailer bill language, and Finance said any amendments would come in the May revision. Members debated the scope of confidentiality in the Inspector General proposal, especially whether reports could be held confidential when they identify weaknesses in fraud controls, security, or other vulnerabilities. The Inspector General said confidentiality would be temporary, tied to articulating the risk, reassessing it every 120 days, and releasing the report once the risk is no longer substantial; he also said the office had already published reports at its discretion and had found at least one procurement violation involving an amendment that added services not in the original contract. Several members pressed for stronger transparency and suggested time limits or broader disclosure, while others argued the bill would improve oversight and make the Inspector General’s authority clearer. No votes were taken during the discussion, and the item was left for further work on the trailer bill and AB 1608 language.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so that information is shared in accordance with the Business and Professions Code, and that provides
• CMTC also shares information pursuant to document subpoenas when the information is needed for pending
• And so that information is shared in accordance with the Business and Professions Code, and that provides
• CMTC also shares information pursuant to document subpoenas when the information is needed for pending
• And we are very concerned that, should we have to share that information publicly, that's going to put

Summary: The joint sunset oversight hearing reviewed five regulatory entities: the Board of Behavioral Sciences, the Board of Psychology, the Physician Assistant Board, the Podiatric Medical Board, and the California Massage Therapy Council. Across the hearing, each entity described recent accomplishments, licensing and enforcement workload, workforce shortages, and efforts to modernize processes. Common themes included streamlining licensure, expanding access to care, addressing telehealth or emerging technology, and balancing consumer protection with workforce needs. For the Board of Behavioral Sciences, members discussed workforce shortages in mental health, supervision barriers, telehealth confidentiality, AI in therapy, interstate compacts, school-based services, and military spouse licensure. The board said it has expanded outreach, improved licensing processes, and created temporary practice authority tracking, while also expressing concern about counseling compacts and emphasizing California-specific law, ethics, and cultural competency. Public commenters supported the board’s work and the possible move to a national MFT exam, while also urging more resources. The Board of Psychology highlighted fee adjustments, streamlined licensure pathways, enforcement process improvements, new CPD requirements, and proposed changes including a psychotherapist-client privilege exception for investigations. Committee members and public witnesses focused heavily on that privilege proposal, with some members opposing it as too broad and privacy-invasive, while the board argued it is needed to obtain records in bias and sexual misconduct cases. The board also discussed workforce shortages, processing improvements, and the use of inactive status for psychological associates. The Physician Assistant Board reported growth in the PA workforce and education programs, SB 697 implementation, and financial pressure from rising enforcement costs. The main policy debate centered on physician-to-PA ratios and practice agreements, with board representatives and many public commenters arguing that current restrictions limit access to care, especially in rural areas, while the California Medical Association defended the need for explicit ratios and agreements. The board also discussed AI, fee increases, and tracking temporary practice authority. The Podiatric Medical Board described licensing and renewal reforms, residency expansion, enforcement support, and budget constraints, while public testimony raised concerns about a proposed fee increase and about reimbursement parity and practice recognition for podiatrists. Finally, the California Massage Therapy Council defended the certification model over licensure, citing lower costs, local government collaboration, anti-trafficking work, and its role in vetting applications and disciplining bad actors; no formal votes or final actions were taken during this portion of the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have data sharing that's allowed.
• that program uh we have data sharing that program uh we have data sharing that's<00:15:44.519>
• that's allowed um this is data sharing that's allowed um this is data sharing is<00:15:46.959>
• that all the towns get a share that all the towns get a share of<00:26:26.200> and<00:26:
• I've been sharing this information with the districts because I want districts to know if their funding

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Department of Education’s Bureau of School Finance provided an adequacy-funding training for Division II, led by Mark Mello. He walked the committee through the adequacy formula using Albany, Allenstown, and Alton as examples, explaining average daily membership, base adequacy aid, and differential aid for free/reduced-price meals, special education, and English language learners. He also noted a recent change requiring home-education differential aid and emphasized that these aid streams are generally unrestricted district funding rather than money tied to specific students or programs. A major focus was the ongoing litigation over the adequacy base amount and the statewide education property tax, or SWEPT. Mello explained the historical basis of the current base amount, the 2008 legislative report that set the original methodology, and the later court ruling that the adequacy amount should be $7,356, which is now before the Supreme Court. He also described how SWEPT currently raises a fixed statewide amount of $363 million and how that revenue is used to offset the state’s adequacy obligation. For the example towns, Albany and Allenstown receive state adequacy grants because their SWEPT revenue is below their calculated adequacy cost, while Alton is an excess SWEPT community because its local SWEPT revenue exceeds the cost of adequate education. The discussion then turned to the pending “excess SWEPT” issue in the Supreme Court and what would happen if excess collections had to be remitted to the state. Mello said the Department is preparing a hypothetical walkthrough and explained that, if the court upholds the Superior Court ruling, DRA would likely be directed to collect excess SWEPT. Members raised concerns about whether SWEPT must be used for educational purposes and about the cash-flow burden on towns if money had to move from municipalities to the state and then back to districts. Mello and members discussed possible administrative workarounds, such as credits against other state aid distributions, and noted that the committee would continue reviewing the mechanics if the court decision comes down during budget work.

Transcript Highlights:

• And if anyone would like to share some additional written information with the committee on today's hearing
• It's an informational session. Superintendent Kevin Mulvey, for his introduction.
• This informational session. Thank you so much, Representative. Good afternoon.
• This afternoon, our team of presenters will share and highlight Quincy CT program at a glance.
• Our team of presenters will share and highlight Quincy CTE program at a glance, including enrollment,

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held an informational hearing at Quincy Public Schools focused on career and technical education (CTE). Committee members said the visit was intended to gather input for statewide CTE legislation, including efforts to expand awareness and access, improve middle school exposure, invest in equipment and facilities, and strengthen ties to workforce boards and labor pathways. Quincy officials described their CTE system as integrated with academics and highlighted support from district, city, and state partners. School leaders outlined Quincy’s CTE offerings, including 15 Chapter 74 programs at Quincy High School and four at North Quincy High School, with about 1,360 students enrolled. Presenters emphasized curriculum aligned to DESE frameworks, work-based learning, industry-recognized credentials, safety training, business electives, dual enrollment and articulation with Quincy College, and grant funding such as Skills Capital and Perkins. They also discussed support liaisons for nontraditional careers and military pathways, advisory committees, and plans to seek Chapter 74 approval for an engineering program at North Quincy, along with new computer science and business offerings. Testimony from MassHire South Shore described workforce partnerships, YouthWorks, job fairs, resume workshops, and the Credit for Life Fair, while the assistant superintendent explained Quincy’s MyCAP planning grant and efforts to build a student-driven college and career readiness system. Three students testified about their pathways in welding, early education and care, and healthcare technology, describing hands-on learning, certifications, clinical or co-op experiences, and future plans for college and careers. Committee members praised Quincy as a model for combining CTE with general education, and the meeting ended with a motion to adjourn and unanimous adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• The last two slides were just sort of appendixes, some of the same information just sharing it in a different
• to it from a shared perspective, data sharing<00:37:33.520> agreements, sharing agreements, sharing
• I mean, we do have data sharing agreements and information exchange agreements with our federal partners
• . information. information.
• our system to are using the information our system to make<01:32:53.040> informed make informed

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee met on May 29 and approved the draft minutes. DHHS Commissioner Weaver then opened the department update by asking Medicaid Director Henry Litman to brief members on federal and state Medicaid changes, and later turned to DHHS Chief Operating Officer David Weathers for an update on data governance. Members also asked that acronyms be spelled out in future materials and requested a follow-up on the federal Medicaid rule once it is published. Litman reviewed several federal Medicaid provisions tied to HR 1/"OBBA" and related state implementation issues. He said the first major change would be restrictions on certain non-citizens’ Medicaid coverage, affecting about 400 people in New Hampshire, with notices likely 30 to 60 days before the effective date. He also discussed new work requirements/community engagement rules, saying New Hampshire is on track to implement them and will likely need a state plan amendment rather than an 1115 waiver. Other changes included shorter retroactive coverage periods, a new state option for certain community-based services with an estimated $740,000 in implementation support, a freeze and phased-down reduction in the Medicaid enhancement tax beginning in state fiscal year 2029, and limits on directed payments to hospitals after a grandfathering period. He also noted that Medicaid enrollment has fallen from pandemic-era levels, with about 167,000 people covered as of May 1, and that the department is working with CMS on child premiums and other cost-sharing changes approved in HB 2. Committee members asked how the department could plan for the 2029 changes given the number of elections before then, and Litman said federal rules may be adjusted over time as states and stakeholders raise concerns. He emphasized planning for the worst while hoping for the best, and said rural health care transformation funding would help the state prepare. In the second presentation, Weathers explained that data governance is now embedded in DHHS operations to control access, manage reporting, and respond to risk. He defined it as managing what data is collected, how it is used, who can access it, and what laws apply, and said DHHS has moved from governance as a committee to governance as an operational process. He described privacy impact assessments for new systems going into production, monthly privacy and security training, and ongoing review of access controls and data-sharing rules.

Transcript Highlights:

• is handled and shared.
• And some of that information is shared through online databases and dashboards, which are helpful, but
• DOC already collects this information, but does not share it in full. HB 525.
• DOC already collects this information, but does not share it in full.
• I share Ms. Garvey's... I share Ms.

Summary: The committee first approved the April 28 minutes and announced that Senate Bill 499 was voluntarily deferred. It then heard several House bills, beginning with HB 168, a reentry/transitional housing program for female parolees near release; supporters said it would improve public safety and reduce recidivism, and the bill was reported favorably without objection. HB 322, a cleanup bill from the Maggie Grace Act clarifying that victims or families requesting transcripts would not be charged, was also reported favorably without objection. HB 622, which aligns Louisiana criminal history information practices with federal rules, was amended and then reported favorably. HB 821, moving the School for Safe Centers from GOSEP to the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement, was reported favorably as well. The committee then took up HB 364, which directs State Police to partner on public awareness efforts about the illegality of discharging firearms, especially around holidays. An amendment removed a proposed printing cost and shifted the bill toward PSAs; the bill was reported favorably with amendments. HB 568, which strengthens enforcement of drug-free school zone laws by creating a clearer offense for openly smoking or vaping illegal drugs in school zones and setting a specific penalty for marijuana, drew extensive debate. Supporters, including the author and governor’s office, said it was needed to protect children and families and to give law enforcement a workable deterrent. Opponents argued it would impose harsh, geography-based penalties, sweep in medical cannabis patients and veterans, and worsen racial and fiscal disparities. After roll-call, the committee reported HB 568 favorably by a 3-2 vote. The committee also approved HB 296, a cleanup bill removing long-defunct programs from statute, without objection. HB 823, creating an Orleans Parish DA pilot diversion program for unhoused people accused of nonviolent offenses, was supported by Covenant House and others as a way to avoid criminalizing homelessness and was reported favorably without objection. Finally, HB 1038, a major bill revising the authority and liability structure of city marshals and local governments, prompted extensive testimony. The bill and amendments would limit some marshal powers in smaller jurisdictions, require local approval for certain staffing/insurance matters, and allow local governments to restore powers by ordinance. Supporters said it would reduce liability, clarify authority, and address problems in some marshal offices; opponents, including multiple marshals and law enforcement supporters, said it would undermine elected marshals, hurt small offices, and was too broad and under-studied. The transcript ends amid that hearing, with no final committee action shown on HB 1038.

Transcript Highlights:

• This information is prohibited from being posted on the board's information website until the investigation
• What do we do with that information?
• We are a shared agency.
• We are a shared agency.
• We are a shared agency.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the discussion will touch on information the discussion will touch on information that<00:06:53.039
• I share that concern, and I think all of you should share that concern as well.
• I share that concern, and I think all of you should share that concern as well.
• <05:53:23.360> are shared well shared septic that are shared well shared septic that are serving
• shared meters so you know for the shared shared meters so you know for the shared well<06:18:16.280

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, the numbers you shared—how many are actually ready?
• A share going forward?
• This new information will help inform the legislature about what.
• Get the same information?
• We are in the process of finalizing a data sharing agreement with CSAC to be able to...

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The information that I plan to share with you today comes from studies conducted by state legislators
• Um the information that I refer to that.
• Um the information that I plan<00:04:49.040> to<00:04:49.199> share<00:04:49.360> with
• Larson has shared.
• I don't think that these the shared.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Legislative Budget Office Oversight Commission met on January 22, 2026, with a quorum present and approved the minutes from the December 17, 2025 meeting. The main presentation was by Erikica McKeler of the National Conference of State Legislatures on dynamic fiscal notes, dynamic scoring, and how they differ from static fiscal notes. She explained that dynamic analysis tries to capture broader economic and behavioral effects of policy changes, but that most states have experimented with it only briefly, often for tax bills, and many have later scaled back or abandoned the practice because it is staff-intensive, expensive, and difficult to validate. McKeler highlighted examples from Texas, Utah, and Arkansas. Texas requires dynamic fiscal impact statements for certain large tax or fee measures and for the biennial appropriations bill; Utah has done such analyses on request during the interim but only when staff time allows; and Arkansas recently began producing dynamic fiscal notes with thresholds and request limits. She noted that these states generally use REMI software, though Utah switched to IMPLAN for cost reasons. She also outlined common challenges, including the need for strong staff expertise, the sensitivity of results to assumptions, the expense of software licenses, and the difficulty of measuring accuracy over time. Members then discussed whether dynamic scoring could be useful for health and human services programs where a policy may shift costs between settings rather than create a simple new expense. Senator Marty raised a Medicaid example involving home-based blue light therapy for newborns, arguing that dynamic analysis might better capture potential savings from avoiding longer hospital stays. Legislative Budget Office and Minnesota Management and Budget staff responded that such effects may be better understood as direct program substitutions rather than true dynamic effects, and emphasized the need for reliable data and caution because savings estimates could reduce appropriations if they do not materialize. The discussion also touched on whether dynamic models would capture local government impacts, but no formal action was taken beyond the approval of minutes and receipt of the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Good information.
• It's just a flood of information.
• And I can't share too much information right now, but, you know, we're always looking for everything
• Let's generate funds and, you know, it's just, I'm not able to share too much information right now.
• So, I just wanted to make sure, Madam Chair, that we do engage in sharing this information and that you

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think the idea is that the state should pay for the share of the prosecuting work For the share
• Trying to get that information.
• Again, I have provided information to Again, I have provided information to the chairs.
• Keep me informed in the process, but Keep me informed in the process, but if we could see about getting
• Um, Request, Public Information Office.

Keywords: 916, all