Video & Transcript Research : 'Title 14'

Page 9 of 500
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • > for<01:14:41.679> a<01:14:41.840> meeting<01:14:42.000> of<01:14:42.080
  • > on<01:14:42.560> committees<01:14:43.199> and<01:14:43.440> the<01:14:43.600
  • :44.400> at<01:14:44.640> the<01:14:44.719> clerk's<01:14:45.120> desk.
  • Without objection,<01:14:45.840> the<01:14:46.080> house<01:14:46.239> stand<01:
  • /c><01:14:49.120> Let's<01:14:49.280> go.
Summary: The House convened, received the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance, established a quorum with 89 members present, excused absent members, and suspended rules to allow co-sponsorships and vote modifications. The chamber approved the prior day’s journal and received notice that the Senate had passed SB 13, 22, 46, 51, and 90 and requested concurrence. On second reading, HB 134 (sexual assault nurse examiners), HB 168 with HCS 1 (voting under the influence), and HR 7 (recognizing guiding principles of elections in Kentucky) were reported. The House also recommitted HB 258 to the Transportation Committee and took up HB 312 for third reading and passage. HB 312, relating to concealed firearms and deadly weapons, drew the bulk of the debate. The sponsor argued the bill would allow law-abiding 18- to 20-year-olds to obtain a provisional concealed carry license, saying they are adults in other respects, the Second Amendment protects their right to bear arms, and Kentucky should align with other states. Supporters framed the measure as a constitutional rights issue and cited defensive gun use statistics, while one member argued the root problem is family upbringing rather than guns. Opponents said the bill would increase risks in schools and public spaces, pointed to concerns from school district police and SROs, and cited research linking younger age groups and loosened carry laws to higher firearm violence; they also argued the bill would make communities less safe and that no one’s rights would be taken away by voting no. The sponsor said no stakeholder had expressed opposition and clarified the bill would not change where firearms are permitted. The transcript provided does not include the final vote on HB 312.
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • to<00:14:01.440> be<00:14:01.600> had<00:14:01.920> in<00:14:02.240>
  • <00:14:07.519> Uh<00:14:07.760> we<00:14:07.920> have<00:14:08.000> a
  • Chairman, uh, question<00:14:27.600> is,<00:14:28.800> um,<00:14:29.360> I<00:14
  • :29.600> know<00:14:29.760> it<00:14:30.000> kind<00:14:30.160> of<00:14:
  • Is there a reason<00:14:33.279> why<00:14:33.600> you<00:14:33.920> didn't,<00:14
Summary: The committee met to approve the October 21 minutes and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal relating to prohibited uses of tax dollars and public resources. The sponsors said the bill is intended to strengthen existing law by adding civil and criminal penalties for taxpayer-funded advocacy on ballot questions, especially in light of controversies during the 2024 election over school officials and districts using public resources to oppose a constitutional amendment. They also described related concerns about school districts hiring third-party lobbyists and public relations firms, particularly in Fayette County, and said the proposal was meant to keep tax dollars focused on public services rather than political persuasion. Committee members raised several concerns about scope and drafting. Some asked whether the bill should specifically mention schools, school boards, and school employees, and the sponsors said they would add that language. Others questioned whether the measure would also affect local government lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, and the sponsors said they intended to focus narrowly on schools while exempting certain advocacy organizations and internal government lobbyists. Members also asked whether public employees could still speak as private individuals, and the sponsors said yes. Several members suggested splitting the lobbying and ballot-advocacy issues into separate bills, and the sponsors said they would consider that. Members also pressed for clarification on how the bill would apply in practice, including whether it would cover legal challenges to petition drives or only advocacy after a question is on the ballot. Counsel for the sponsors said the bill would not cover some petition-related litigation as drafted, though they believed it should. The sponsors and supporters argued the proposal was needed to give the existing prohibition real enforcement, while some members warned that the language could unintentionally limit legitimate public representation or be too broad if not carefully drafted. No final vote was taken during the discussion.
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • <00:14:24.639> Um,<00:14:24.959> I<00:14:25.199> think<00:14:25.279> it's
  • Chairman, uh, question<00:14:31.600> is,<00:14:32.800> um,<00:14:33.360> I<00:14
  • :33.600> know<00:14:33.760> it<00:14:34.000> kind<00:14:34.160> of<00:14:
  • Yeah, >> I'm<00:14:56.160> behind<00:14:56.480> one<00:14:56.720> day<00:14
  • >> No,<00:14:58.320> you're<00:14:58.480> ahead<00:14:58.639> of<00:14:58.720
Summary: The committee met, approved the October 21 minutes, and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal to prohibit the use of tax dollars and public resources to advocate for or against ballot questions, including constitutional amendments. Senator Rawlings and the other presenters argued the current law already bars such advocacy but lacks meaningful enforcement, citing the 2024 school choice amendment campaign and other examples where public officials and school systems allegedly used taxpayer-funded resources to influence voters. They said the bill would add civil and criminal penalties, while preserving First Amendment rights for public employees acting in their personal capacities. Much of the discussion focused on whether the bill should be limited to school districts or broadened to cover other public entities, and on how to define terms such as “advocating in impartial terms.” Members raised concerns about possible effects on county and city lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, on legitimate factual explanations by public officials, and on whether the bill could unintentionally restrict needed representation for local governments. The sponsors said the measure was intended to be narrow, would be vetted further, and would not bar individuals from speaking on their own behalf. Several members suggested revisions. Representative Lockett asked that schools and school employees be specifically named, and suggested separating the lobbying restrictions from the ballot-measure provisions into different bills. Representative Layman questioned the meaning of the bill’s language and whether it would cover factual testimony by officials. Representative Heen asked about a Jefferson County example involving legal fees used to challenge petition signatures; counsel said that situation would likely be allowable under the bill as drafted, though some members thought it should be covered. No final vote was taken on BR 25 during this discussion.
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • <00:14:05.040> retirement<00:14:05.560> benefits<00:14:06.160> for<00:14:06.399>
  • <00:14:09.600> for<00:14:09.839> this<00:14:10.040> individual<00:14:10.839>
  • <00:14:17.880> did<00:14:18.040> I<00:14:18.199> talk<00:14:18.399> too<00
  • six<00:14:26.839> days<00:14:27.079> an<00:14:27.279> annual<00:14:27.560><
  • 28.000> amount<00:14:28.279> to<00:14:28.560> close<00:14:28.839> to<00:14
Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on State and Local Government first took up Senate Bill 193, a simple measure described as restoring wallet cards for jailers to carry when they are outside the jail. The sponsor noted the fiscal impact was essentially zero, there were no questions, and the committee approved the bill 9-0 for passage to the Senate floor. The committee then heard Senate Bill 9, sponsored by Senator Higdon, which would change how the Teachers Retirement System (TRS) treats sick leave, personal leave, and annual leave in retirement calculations. The sponsor argued the bill is intended to address TRS’s financial challenges by standardizing leave rules statewide, limiting TRS retirement credit to 10 sick days and 2 personal days per year, preventing annual leave from being rolled into sick leave, requiring districts to pay the actuarial cost for any leave beyond the cap, and adding reporting and oversight requirements for participating agencies. He also said the bill would add 30 days of maternity leave, allow voluntary district contributions for tier four teachers, and direct the state auditor to audit TRS and report on agencies. Committee members asked about how overages would be audited and billed, the cost of a sick day, and how the bill would interact with local leave policies, including paid parental leave in some districts. The sponsor clarified that existing accumulated leave would not be affected, that the bill applies going forward, and that districts could still offer more leave but would bear the added cost. Members also discussed whether the maternity leave language set a cap or a minimum, and one senator noted the bill was intended to preserve personal days while stopping annual leave from being converted into pension credit. No vote on Senate Bill 9 was shown in the transcript excerpt.
KY

Kentucky 2026 Regular Session

House Standing Committee on Banking and Insurance. (3-25-26)

Banking & Insurance

Transcript Highlights:
  • If<00:14:16.320> you'd<00:14:16.440> come<00:14:16.600> to<00:14:16.680> the<
  • You all introduce<00:14:20.040> yourselves<00:14:20.520> for<00:14:20.600> the<00
  • And<00:14:22.040> then<00:14:22.200> you<00:14:22.320> may<00:14:22.480> proceed
  • you may proceed with your testimony<00:14:23.880> on<00:14:24.040> the<00:14:24.120>
  • Thank<00:14:26.000> you,<00:14:26.400> Chairman<00:14:27.200> Meredith<00:14:27.640
KY

Kentucky 2026 Regular Session

House Standing Committee on Agriculture. (3-25-26)

Agriculture

Transcript Highlights:
  • Now,<00:14:21.240> we'll<00:14:21.440> move<00:14:21.720> on<00:14:21.920> to
  • And<00:14:27.760> I'll<00:14:28.040> ask<00:14:28.440> my<00:14:28.720>
  • Dana<00:14:45.760> Feldman,<00:14:46.520> executive<00:14:47.000> director<00:14
  • And<00:14:54.360> I<00:14:54.400> do<00:14:54.560> want<00:14:54.720> to<
  • 00:14:54.800> say<00:14:55.000> that<00:14:55.360> I'm<00:14:56.000> I'm<