Transcript Highlights:

• They do not provide health benefits, pay payroll taxes.
• There might be a reduction in what passengers are paying because they're paying less of the fee. ...be
• a reduction in what passengers are paying because they're paying less of the fee, but there's no guarantee
• All of us users paying in.
• All of us users paying in.

Summary: The Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee heard three bills. SB 371 by Senator Cabaldon would reduce uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage requirements for transportation network companies from $1 million to $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident, with committee amendments adding findings and declarations, higher limits than originally proposed, and a joint study on UM/UIM impacts. Supporters, including Uber, Lyft, business groups, and some consumer advocates, argued the bill would lower fares and increase driver earnings by reducing insurance costs. Opponents, including consumer attorneys, labor groups, and consumer watchdog organizations, warned it would cut protections for riders and drivers and might not guarantee savings would be passed through. The committee approved SB 371 on a due-pass basis and re-referred it to Appropriations by a 9-0 vote. The committee then heard SB 716 by Senator Durazo, which would create a Home Internet Lifeline Program to let eligible low-income households apply Lifeline subsidies to home broadband service. Proponents said the bill addresses broadband affordability after the federal Affordable Connectivity Program expired, and that it would help students, workers, and families access reliable internet. Opponents from the wireless industry objected to the funding mechanism, arguing the surcharge would fall unfairly on wireless consumers, while one broadband group moved to neutral after amendments. The bill was approved on a due-pass basis and sent to Appropriations, but the roll was held open and later completed with the bill passing 7-1. The committee also took up SB 480 by Senator Archuleta relating to autonomous vehicles as a consent item, with no presentation or debate. It was approved on a due-pass basis and re-referred to Appropriations by a 9-0 vote. Throughout the hearing, members repeatedly focused on affordability, consumer protection, and whether savings from the bills would actually reach riders, drivers, or households.

Transcript Highlights:

• So they're, they're participating in our economy, but they, uh, they have to pay, if, if they have to
• Their child would be required to pay this 15%. Um, and they would be taking out loans.
• But it also, right now we're forcing these people to borrow money to pay for the other people.
• oftentimes borrow money to pay for the person next to them.
• So they would still be paying the loan. If they needed it beforehand.

Transcript Highlights:

• programs and the funds are used to pay programs and the funds are used to pay for<00:07:26.800><
• for this as a much uh I would pay for this as a self-pay<01:33:32.800> because<01:33:33.080><
• , and what they actually pay.
• that um they they shouldn't be paying that um they they shouldn't be paying those<02:14:39.679><
• pay pay for the relationship you just pay pay for the services<04:10:24.640> once<04:10:24.800

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• pay lower premiums.
• System that carriers pay for is different.
• them, you still pay them a death benefit.
• And we also pay their commissions.
• So they are the middleman who pays the pharmacies.

Transcript Highlights:

• I forgot to pay it.
• I forgot to pay it.
• pay taxes, right?
• <04:17:49.439> Um unions still pay pay some of them.
• Um unions still pay pay some of them.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee focused primarily on a bill concerning long-term care insurance rate increases and consumer notice. Members and staff discussed replacing or supplementing a proposed public hearing requirement with annual reporting, website updates, and consumer-facing disclosures about approved rate increases, carriers writing the products, and how the products work. Several participants emphasized that long-term care policies are long-term products, that rate increases can be spread over many years for actuarial reasons, and that consumers need better information about trends and the impact of increases. A major point of disagreement was whether the bill should try to cap premium increases. One member argued the real problem is unexpected increases of 15% to 20% and urged a statutory cap to protect consumers. Insurance department representatives and others responded that hard caps had been struck down in prior case law, that the department’s core responsibility is solvency, and that carriers need sufficient premium to pay future claims. They also said the market is struggling because many carriers stopped selling the product, leaving in-force policies to bear the cost, and that overly restrictive caps could cause insurers to withdraw from the state. The discussion then shifted toward a compromise requiring carriers to notify policyholders before a rate increase is approved and allowing a 60-day comment period. Participants debated whether the notice should come from the carrier, how confidentiality rules would apply before approval, and what the department should do with public comments. The department said it already reviews filings carefully and that submitted rates are often adjusted before approval; lawmakers noted that prior commissioners had pushed back on increases in some cases, including a seven-year moratorium. No final vote was taken in the excerpt, and the chair repeatedly tried to move the subcommittee along to other bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• uh would not be subject to paying uh would not be subject to paying property<00:25:20.080> taxes
• tax net taxes that they pay. Right? tax net taxes that they pay. Right?
• I'm sorry, elect to pay a h 100red,000?
• you can pay whatever 3,000 to the hospital. hospital. hospital.
• Um, some have had sales tax audits where they have had to pay sales tax on that 3%.

Keywords: MS Senate Floor - 25 February, 2026; 10:00 AM, 925, all

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, opened with prayer by Reverend Max Smith of Jesus Name Tabernacle in Florence, and then led the Pledge of Allegiance. The chamber quickly dispensed with the reading of the journal and committee reports, and then spent much of the morning recognizing guests, including multiple FFA groups, the Mississippi FFA state officer team, the Mississippi Food Bank Collaborative, optometrists visiting for Optometry Day, and representatives from engineering and fire service organizations. On the calendar, the Senate took up several finance-related bills. Senate Bill 2824, extending deadlines related to renewable energy fee-in-lieu agreements and construction start dates, was explained and adopted, then passed by use of the morning roll call with three no votes and one present. Senate Bill 2867, revising the income tax credit for employer-provided dependent child care or child care stipends, was explained as a targeted, capped credit for actual employer spending on licensed child care; it was adopted and passed by morning roll call. Senate Bill 3109, clarifying that a nonprofit leasing and managing LaFleur’s Bluff State Park land is not subject to ad valorem taxes on state-owned park land, was adopted and passed by morning roll call with one no vote. The Senate also considered Senate Bill 2840, which would provide a 75% rebate or sales tax credit related to inventory taxes and eliminate local privilege taxes. After extended discussion, the committee substitute was adopted, a reverse repealer amendment was added, and the bill passed by morning roll call with one no vote. Senators discussed the burden of inventory taxes on retailers and the need for more data before fully implementing the proposal. Finally, Senate Bill 2868, creating a tax credit tied to employer contributions for individual coverage health reimbursement arrangements (ICHRAs), was introduced and explained as a way to encourage employer-supported health coverage for small and midsize businesses; the transcript cuts off during the explanation before final action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't pay that, and they now pay that.
• <01:44:38.719> that don't pay that and they now pay that don't pay that and they now pay that
• What do we pay for? What does the state pay for?
• But are they also paying 0.2% of payroll for those people? Is everybody paying?
• It only seems like it would save a million and a half. pay 50% you pay 20% Then I'm going to pay 50%

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a work session on the Department of Business and Economic Affairs’ budget, with testimony from division leadership on staffing, funding sources, and program changes. Early discussion focused on vacant positions in the agency, including a senior planner tied to FEMA requirements, a federally funded program assistant, a program specialist to be reclassified during a planning reorganization, and two Housing Champions positions that were authorized but not funded in the current biennium and are requested for 2026-27. The witnesses also explained that temporary welcome center positions are filled as funds allow, and that the agency’s requested general fund increase is driven largely by the Division of Travel and Tourism Development and its formula-based funding. Members then reviewed rest areas, welcome centers, outdoor recreation, economic development, procurement, and workforce opportunity lines. The department said there are 12 rest areas, with 5.8 million foot counts in FY 24, and that welcome centers are generally open year-round, though Sutton is currently closed and staffing relies on a mix of full-time and temporary employees. The outdoor recreation position is federally funded through USDA and supports business outreach, trade shows, and industry promotion. In economic development, the agency said increased dues reflect participation in the Northern Borders Regional Commission, and that a marketing line item is intended to support recruitment and promotion of growth industries such as advanced manufacturing and life sciences. The Apex Accelerator Program was described as a state-federal partnership requiring a state match and providing government contracting assistance to businesses, while the Office of Workforce Opportunity was explained as a federally funded WIOA-related effort administered through multiple agencies and subrecipients. A major point of discussion was the proposed reduction to the Small Business Development Center, which members said had generated significant public concern. The department described SBDC as a highly effective technical assistance program for new and small businesses, but said the cut was one of the few places it felt it had room to reduce funding. Members asked about federal support and matching requirements for various programs, and the department said less than half of its overall budget is generally funded by the state and that some programs require state match. The committee also discussed travel and tourism marketing and the Joint Promotional Program, with the department saying those funds support broader advertising campaigns and grants to chambers and trade associations for events such as Bike Week, Restaurant Week, and the Seafood Festival. No votes were taken during the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• We pay for it. We pay income tax over this. We pay property taxes over this. This is my job.
• We pay for it. We pay income tax it. We pay for it. We pay income tax over<01:43:57.679> this.
• Um, I do pay property taxes. I also pay the meals and rooms tax.
• to pay for the to pay for the fees. fees. fees.
• wells had to pay to treat their water. wells had to pay to treat their water.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 1596, which would raise New Hampshire’s cigarette excise tax from $1.78 per pack to about $2.80, using an inflation-based adjustment since the rate was last set in 2008. Representative Jerry Stringham, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure would keep New Hampshire competitive with neighboring states, generate revenue, and help offset other budget pressures. He also described the bill as repealing an income-based premium charge in Medicaid/CHIP-related programs and restoring cuts to the University System of New Hampshire, arguing that the combined package would still leave the state in a positive fiscal position. He said the tobacco tax increase would likely have some cessation effect but would remain low relative to other New England states, and he cited prior testimony from health groups supporting a larger increase. Members questioned the sponsor about how the new rate was calculated, the prior tobacco tax reduction and restoration, whether tobacco companies would absorb or pass on the tax, and the fiscal note’s estimates for Medicaid premium revenue and UNH funding. Stringham said he used Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation data, that the earlier 10-cent reduction did not produce the expected sales increase, and that the current bill would eliminate the premium charges now in the budget. He later clarified that the Department of Medicaid Services had updated the revenue estimate, but said the bill still showed a surplus overall. He also said the federal government already imposes a $1-per-pack tax and that New Hampshire would remain below neighboring states even after the increase. Two public witnesses testified in opposition to the tax increase. Anna Bettincourt, a tobacco category manager, argued that higher tobacco taxes would unfairly target smokers, reduce New Hampshire’s tax advantage, and likely shift purchases to other states or illicit markets rather than reduce use. She said tobacco companies generally do not lower prices and that Massachusetts’ flavor restrictions had not eliminated sales. In response to questions, she maintained that a smaller increase would still be harmful and that enforcement problems make bans ineffective. The sponsor and some members countered that smokers impose higher health costs and that tobacco taxes are a policy tool for both revenue and public health. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• their sales in the state and pays their sales in the state and pays directly<01:29:14.560> to
• <01:35:39.320> here would be a fee paid by paying here would be a fee paid by paying here
• didn't paint their living rooms paying didn't paint their living rooms paying for<01:53:30.080><
• now would be paying it for themselves. now would be paying it for themselves.
• Um, I mean, so why don't they just pay Um, I mean, so why don't they just pay for<01:55:59.920><

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• c> training<00:15:23.040> or our pastor to pay for choir training or our pastor to pay for
• And who pays the MET?
• And who pays the MET? The tax million. And who pays the MET?
• Please pay attention.
• Pay attention to it. Okay. is. Pay attention to it. Okay.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 291, which would update religious land-use and property tax exemption rules for church-owned parsonages, parish houses, and similar properties. Senator Tim Lang, speaking for the sponsor, said the bill was intended to address situations where former parsonages are no longer occupied by clergy and are instead used for church-related purposes such as housing staff, religious education, or congregate living tied to ministry, including addiction recovery. He emphasized that the bill was not meant to create commercial rental housing and that it also preserves reasonable zoning and environmental regulations. Committee members pressed the sponsor on how the bill would be applied, especially the meaning of “religious purposes,” the six-unit limit, the “same lot” language, and whether churches could use the exemption to rent units for revenue. The sponsor said the six-unit cap was added to prevent large-scale commercial rental use, that congregate housing would be limited and defined, and that the bill was meant to cover uses like substance abuse recovery, homes for unwed mothers, and religious education, but not apartments converted for ordinary rental. He also said churches would still file annual exemption paperwork and towns could challenge claims they believed were commercial. Questions also raised concerns about whether the bill treated religious and nonreligious housing trusts differently; the sponsor responded that the bill was aimed at church-owned property used in pursuit of a religious mission. Several witnesses testified in support. Representative Mark Pearson, an active clergyman, said the bill would not remove additional property from the tax rolls because clergy housing allowances typically lead clergy to buy taxable homes elsewhere, while the church-owned parsonage remains exempt. Nick Taylor of Housing Action New Hampshire supported the bill as a modest expansion that could help create more attainable housing by allowing better use of existing religious land and structures, though he noted his organization would support even broader use. The hearing ended without a vote or final action, and the chair closed questions after the testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• We want to be able to pay for school. In a future year, we want to be able to pay for firefighters.
• We want to be able to pay for schools.
• But the $98 billion surplus, we didn't pay off $20 billion. And Same question again.
• But the $98 billion surplus, we didn't pay off $20 billion.
• make which of those debts to choose to pay down in the budget.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight heard ACA 20, the Safe for California Futures Act, a constitutional amendment to strengthen the state’s Budget Stabilization Account (rainy day fund). The authors, Assembly Members Gabriel and Valencia, said the measure would raise the reserve cap from 10% to 20% of General Fund revenues, change how reserve deposits are treated under the Gann limit so deposits would not count against the spending cap until withdrawn, and update eligible debt repayments to include items such as budget loans, Proposition 98 settle-up obligations, and unemployment insurance debt. They emphasized that the proposal was intended to protect schools and core public services and to help California better withstand revenue volatility and future downturns. Committee discussion focused heavily on the technical effects of the measure, especially its interaction with Proposition 98 and the Gann limit. LAO and Department of Finance staff explained that Prop. 98 funding would not be changed directly, that the reserve deposits would be treated as exclusions from the appropriations limit, and that withdrawals would count when spent. Members asked about current reserve levels, mandatory deposits, and whether the measure would create more room for discretionary spending; supporters argued it would simply allow the state to save more in good years, while one member expressed concern that it could function as a slush fund and expand spending opportunities. Several members cited recent budget volatility, record revenues, and the need for stronger reserves, while others stressed that the measure should be understood as a future-oriented savings reform rather than a response to this year’s budget choices. Public testimony was uniformly supportive. California Forward, Elevate California, and the California Chamber of Commerce all backed the proposal, with the Chamber noting support for the policy and highlighting the importance of addressing unemployment insurance debt for small businesses. The chair concluded by thanking the authors, staff, and witnesses, and said ACA 20 was expected to move to the Assembly floor the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is to pay claims for the Crime Victims Reparations Program.
• It is to pay three new extra help attorneys. Mr.
• It is to pay three new extra help attorneys.
• It is to pay three new extra help attorneys. Mr.
• This is to pay for 12 narcotic detection canines.

Summary: The committee reviewed a large slate of appropriation, transfer, and continuation requests across multiple sections. In Section B, members considered temporary FY27 appropriations for agencies including Health, DHS, Education, Treasury, Public Safety, State Police, Emergency Management, Aeronautics, Military, Economic Development, Game and Fish, and others, covering items such as maternal health outreach, LIHEAP overpayment returns, Wynne High School tornado rebuilding, senior food services, cybersecurity, crime victim claims, airport grants, conservation incentives, and emergency tower maintenance. Questions focused on the DHS senior services carry-forward and Treasury custodial banking fees tied to lower balances after COVID funds were spent down. All Section B items were approved. The committee then approved continuation requests, ARPA reallocations, and federal grant-related items in Sections B2, C1A, D1, D2, D3, E1, E2, E3, F1A, G1, H1A, I1A, J1/J2, K1/K2/K3, L1/L2, M1/M2, N1/N2, O1A, and P1A. These included university nursing and workforce programs, environmental and recycling grants, highway safety and emergency management grants, a transfer to the Merit Teacher Incentive Program, restricted reserve transfers for military, agriculture, UAPB, Game and Fish, and AETN, and various cash-fund and budget classification transfers. Several members asked for more detail on the State Police highway safety grant, VOCA victim compensation funding, the NSGP nonprofit security grant, and the Office of State Technology’s E-Rate-related transfer; agency officials explained the uses and noted that some funding levels depend on federal awards and collections. A notable discussion occurred on the Department of Commerce reallocation, which shifts 68 positions and $3 million among divisions to support an organizational realignment and avoid shortfalls. The committee also reviewed a state central services deduction request to keep the rate at 2%, a DHS overtime request for child protection caseloads, and a year-end adjustments request authorizing up to $1 million in temporary actions to close FY26 books without disrupting payroll or vendor payments. Most items were approved or, in some sections, simply reviewed without objection. The meeting adjourned after completing the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is to pay claims for the Crime Victims Reparations Program.
• It's to pay overtime worked by State Police driving track personnel.
• It's to pay overtime worked by State Police driving track personnel.
• This is to pay salary-related reimbursements with the bank department.
• This is to pay for 12 narcotic detection canines.

Summary: The committee met to review a large slate of fiscal year 2026 and 2027 appropriation, transfer, and continuation requests across multiple sections. Early items included temporary appropriations for agencies such as Health, DHS, Education, Public Safety, State Police, Emergency Management, Aeronautics, Military, Economic Development, and Game and Fish, covering items like maternal health outreach, energy assistance repayments, Wynne High School tornado rebuilding, senior food services, cybersecurity, crime victim reparations, aviation grants, conservation incentives, and emergency tower maintenance. Members asked questions on several items, including DHS aging carry-forward funds and Treasury custodial banking fees tied to COVID-era balances; the committee also approved a disclosure by the chair on the Game and Fish-related item before voting to approve the section. The committee then approved continuation requests, CARES Act and ARPA reallocations, and federal grant appropriations. Notable discussion included the Boonville developmental disability project, ALIGN program reallocations at several universities, a small business technical assistance grant at UA Little Rock, and a Department of Public Safety highway safety grant, for which members requested more detail on operating expenses and professional fees. Additional approvals covered a transfer to the Merit Teacher Incentive program, restricted reserve fund transfers for military medical command and university projects, and a state central services deduction held at 2%. The Department of Commerce also received approval for a reallocation of positions and spending authority tied to its organizational realignment. Later sections included shared technology and higher education transfers, cash fund appropriations for school Medicaid reimbursements, corrections, youth mental health, narcotics detection canines, bike safety equipment, a state motor pool pilot, and law enforcement safety costs. The committee also reviewed budget classification transfers, including a Governor’s Office legal fee transfer related to a California lawsuit, and heard explanations about E-Rate reimbursements affecting the Office of State Technology. Members asked about VOCA funding levels for crime victim services and about the National Security Grant Program for nonprofits and faith-based organizations; officials said federal funding had declined from prior highs but appeared to have stabilized, and that the nonprofit security grant is an annual federal program. The meeting concluded with review of pay plan requests, DHS overtime funding for child protection caseloads, and a year-end adjustment request allowing DFA to make up to $1 million in transfers to close the books, after which the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The question is who pays for this one.
• Yes, we want everybody to pay in rates.
• Instead, we’re talking about who pays.
• Instead, we’re talking about who pays.
• Right now, I pay for two homes; I pay for two lots. I'm sorry.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's important to note that patients don't pay this dispensing fee in addition to their co-pays, despite
• paying independents, that really would increase more than what they're paying independents.
• So who's going to pay for that? That's some question you mentioned. So would that be?
• Lastly, Medicare and Medicaid do not pay for this.
• Lastly, Medicare and Medicaid do not pay for this.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 2433, which would require insurers offering Medicare supplement policies to people 65 and older to also offer them to Medicare beneficiaries under 65 with ALS or end-stage renal disease, with enrollment periods and premium protections tied to 65-year-old rates. Supporters, including dialysis and ALS advocates, said the bill would help a small population facing high out-of-pocket costs and could improve access to transplants and care; opponents argued it would shift costs onto older seniors and raise Medigap premiums. The committee recommended the bill do pass on a 12-0 vote. The committee also heard House Bill 2593, appropriating $1.5 million to the University of Arizona for the Arizona Perinatal Psychiatry Access Line. The sponsor and physicians testified that the line helps obstetric and pediatric providers quickly consult on perinatal depression, postpartum psychosis, suicidality, and other mental health crises, improving outcomes for mothers, children, and families and reducing costly emergency and crisis care. The bill received a do pass recommendation on a 10-1 vote. House Concurrent Resolution 2013, proclaiming June 2026 as Celebrate Life Month, drew emotional testimony from a young woman with spina bifida and another speaker supporting the sanctity of life. Some members objected that the state should focus on practical supports such as paid leave, child care, and health care access, while others supported the resolution as a statement of human dignity. The resolution passed the committee 7-5. The committee then approved House Bill 4010, creating a Board of Genetic Counselors and licensure standards, after testimony from genetic counselors and a patient advocate about the need for qualified counseling and better access; it passed 11-1. Later, the committee approved House Bill 2196, which would require pharmacy benefit managers to reimburse non-affiliated pharmacies at least their acquisition cost and pay a dispensing fee, and establish an appeals process. Independent pharmacists and their coalition said PBM practices are driving closures and unfairly favor affiliated pharmacies, while PBM and employer representatives warned of major cost increases and said the bill would interfere with private contracts; the bill passed 11-1. The committee also adopted a strike-everything amendment to House Bill 2182 requiring insurers and health plans to report claims denial and prior authorization data to DIFI, and then gave the amended bill a 12-0 do pass recommendation. Finally, the committee approved House Bill 2189, directing the Board of Nursing to update rules for licensed health aides and collect annual data, with the sponsor and board staff saying it would help implement routine ventilator care in the home; it passed 12-0. The committee then began hearing House Bill 2404, a strike-everything amendment on inter-facility transports for behavioral health patients, but the transcript cuts off before action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, what will people have to pay for that surcharge? And who will pay it?
• There's co-pays that could kick in.
• The rich people pay taxes. They're allowed to benefit too.
• They will tell them, you've paying an employee below the floor of the pay, and— It.
• They will tell them you've paying an employee below the floor of the pay, and we're not going to pay

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• which is way above our um our pay grade. which is way above our um our pay grade.
• Medical licensure pays $125,000.
• >> We don't pay them enough. >> We don't pay them enough. >> I'm finding that that's a problem.
• but I think that that they were paying but I think that that they were paying like<00:55:36.000>
• No, we were paying paying paying >> current<00:55:51.040> building.

Keywords: Appropriations - Room 409, 28 January, 2026; 1:30 P.M., 925, all

Summary: The committee heard budget presentations from the Mississippi Board of Pharmacy and the Mississippi State Board of Chiropractic Examiners, followed by the physical therapy board. The Pharmacy Board said it licenses pharmacists, technicians, students, and many facilities and supply-chain entities, including wholesalers, manufacturers, 3PLs, PBMs, and nonresident compounders. Its main requests were a 3% salary increase for specialized staff, about $118,000 for contract help to evaluate pharmacists with substance abuse or mental health issues under a recently passed public health bill, and additional IT spending authority for system upgrades and cloud migration. Members discussed the board’s role in protecting the public, vetting out-of-state facilities, and the need to keep sensitive data secure; no vote was taken. The Chiropractic Examiners board described itself as a small, contract-staffed agency with about 700 active licenses and a database system that is no longer supported by Microsoft. It said it had requested about $173,000, but the legislative budget recommendation was $134,000, and it needs roughly $40,000 more to upgrade or rebuild the system, including security fixes and online renewal capability. Members focused on the cybersecurity risk of using unsupported software and the need to protect personal information; the board also noted that its licensing data does not include banking information because payments are handled through the state portal. The Physical Therapy Board said it regulates physical therapists and physical therapist assistants, with 4,242 licenses and 252 complaints in the last fiscal year, and that demand for the profession continues to grow. Its requests included $6,000 in salary progression for long-serving staff, about $360 more in PDM salary authority, and roughly $38,610 for a one-time upgrade to its LMS licensing system, plus related cloud-migration costs. Senators noted the board’s strong reputation, discussed the burden of annual or biennial renewals, and supported the technology upgrade because the current system is no longer supported and could create liability risks if not addressed.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've looked at that at the office and In in a lot of instances we're paying contractors paying or contractors
• So the mortgage pays, you know, would have effectively. pay down the bonds. So there's that.
• Members don't pay a penny.
• Investing in the arts pays off for the Texas taxpayer.
• two pay increases, including the one in 2002.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• employeer is re reinstated with back pay employeer is re reinstated with back pay and<00:27:03.360
• We have to pay that service.
• to pay that service.
• It won't be now; people can't pay, so they don't pay.
• pay so they don't pay I don't they can't pay so they don't pay I don't care<04:56:29.920> how<

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard from the Personnel Appeals Board, which explained that it became an independent state agency after Senate Bill 487 and was presenting its first standalone operating budget. The board described its quasi-judicial role in hearing appeals from classified state employees over disciplinary actions such as warnings, suspensions, and terminations, and said it handles about 25 to 35 cases a year, with some cases lasting longer because of their complexity. Members also outlined the need for a chair and vice chair who are attorneys, the board’s current staffing and space needs, and its plan to move away from reliance on Administrative Services for office support and website functions. The board requested about $353,500 for fiscal year 2026, including startup costs, routine operating expenses, and two new part-time positions: a program director and a paralegal. Members said the budget reflects the new independent status, includes funding for only four board members rather than the authorized five, and is designed to avoid full-time staffing costs and benefits. Legislators asked about the cost per case, the board’s relationship to DAS, whether appeals must go through the board before court, and how often cases are appealed further. The board said appeals must first go through it, that court appeals are infrequent but have increased recently, and that the board’s process is intended to resolve disputes more quickly and less expensively than court litigation. Committee members also asked about the board’s caseload, outcomes, and staffing. The board said that in the prior year there were 22 cases, with four decisions overturned in favor of employees, nine dismissals, and nine settlements, and that many disputes are resolved before reaching the board through a multi-step internal process. A member noted the governor and council had recently approved a new board member and were expected to approve a fifth soon. The discussion ended with questions about the board’s website and records access, which members said would need to be moved from Administrative Services as part of the agency’s transition. The committee then moved to the New Hampshire Council on Developmental Disabilities. The executive director explained that the council is 100 percent federally funded under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act and develops a five-year plan to address the needs of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. She said the council works with state agencies and advocacy organizations on quality-of-life issues, accessibility, voter rights training, and plain-language or easy-to-read materials, and that 60 percent of its membership must be individuals with disabilities or family members/guardians. She also described the council’s funding structure, including reimbursement to the state for operating costs, and noted that it currently has three full-time and three part-time positions, with no new positions requested but one full-time position being eliminated and replaced after a pandemic-era staffing change did not work out as planned.

Transcript Highlights:

• And instead of, you know, correcting it, Toit filed to have her removed because he won't pay her or pay
• You're paying the lawyers. You're paying Brian Twight. No, I understand that.
• They pay $2,750.
• You had to pay your attorneys? They didn't have to pay it? Right. That's messed up. Thank you.
• He didn't pay his... Thank you. Orders of protection. He didn't pay his child support or his taxes.

Summary: The Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Elder Abuse opened by explaining it was gathering testimony on elder abuse, especially alleged misconduct involving court-appointed systems such as guardians ad litem and fiduciaries, to identify gaps in law and oversight and develop legislative fixes. The chair limited each witness’s time, asked for names and contact information for follow-up, and repeatedly noted that some allegations might warrant referral to law enforcement, the attorney general, or county attorneys if basic criminal elements were present. Several witnesses described alleged abuse in guardianship, conservatorship, and fiduciary cases. Dr. Holly Lauder said her mother, who had Alzheimer’s disease, was subjected to allegedly deficient psychological capacity evaluations that ignored treating doctors and family input, leading to a fiduciary arrangement that later resulted in neglect. Kevin Axson described his mother’s probate case, saying a guardian ad litem and conservator were appointed after a family financial dispute, that the guardian ad litem and fiduciary had little contact with his mother, and that the estate was burdened with substantial fees and a $200,000 bond requirement. Frieda Alvarado testified about a 94-year-old client, Samuel Armento, saying he was isolated, medicated without his request, and treated without dignity after a fiduciary and care team took control. Bill Chalmers, Johnny Hamilton, and Kathy Hamilton also testified about Sam Armento’s case, alleging isolation, excessive fees, conflicts of interest, and poor oversight by fiduciaries and caregivers. Other witnesses raised broader concerns about Arizona probate practices. David Redkey said he has been under a long-running conservatorship despite earning degrees and maintaining capacity, and alleged that court-appointed professionals and fiduciaries overcharged his estate and blocked efforts to terminate the arrangement. Susan Wolfe described the Peyton case, alleging that a wife’s conservatorship and related court actions led to the loss of assets, exclusion of witnesses, and large fees for a relatively small monthly care bill. Dr. Lewis Heller, an OB-GYN and disciplinary committee member, said the medical evaluations he reviewed showed the people involved were competent and that the conduct he observed was unethical and possibly criminal. Renee Self testified that she lost her role as trustee and spent large sums defending her father’s estate, alleging that the probate process stripped her father of assets and limited her access to him despite APS findings that her actions were in his best interests. No formal committee votes or legislative actions were taken in the excerpt, but members repeatedly expressed concern, asked for documents and transcripts, and indicated they would follow up with witnesses and consider stakeholder meetings to craft legislation addressing oversight, transparency, and accountability in guardianship and fiduciary systems.