Transcript Highlights:

• They have real concerns regarding retaliation, or they don't trust the criminal justice system.
• But most will never come forward, often due to fear of retaliation.
• And defamation suits are the third most common form of retaliation for survivors in the workplace.
• This bill will ensure that survivors can speak out without fear of retaliation.
• This bill will ensure that survivors can speak out without fear of retaliation or costly legal fees.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a lengthy hearing on a wide range of bills involving domestic violence, sexual assault, child sexual abuse, trafficking, victim compensation, and related criminal justice reforms. Testimony focused on measures to support survivors and close perceived legal gaps, including bills to protect domestic violence survivors in child welfare proceedings, expand victim compensation for homicide families and trafficking survivors, create a DNA exception to the rape statute of limitations, eliminate or extend statutes of limitations for child sexual abuse, and strengthen laws on upskirting, sexual abuse by adults in positions of authority, and sexual assault by rideshare drivers. Several speakers also addressed bills concerning vulnerable adults, harassment and custody-related abuse, and early evidence kits. Witnesses included legislators, prosecutors, advocates, and many survivors who described personal experiences with abuse and barriers to justice. Supporters argued that current laws often leave survivors without meaningful remedies, especially where consent, reporting requirements, evidentiary rules, or statutes of limitations prevent prosecution or compensation. Prosecutors and advocates said the bills would clarify vague statutes, increase penalties in some cases, and better reflect the realities of coercion, grooming, trafficking, and delayed reporting. Some testimony also urged amendments, including changes to victim compensation reporting rules and clarifications to avoid unintended conflicts with other wage-recovery laws. No committee votes or final actions were taken in the hearing itself. The chairs emphasized strict time limits, respectful conduct, and the submission of written testimony, and several witnesses were called out of order to accommodate the large number of speakers.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill will ensure that survivors can speak out without fear of retaliation or costly legal fees.
• Retaliation continued even after I underwent a second brain surgery for a stroke condition, and then
• When I sued for retaliation, Massachusetts law no longer allowed me to include sexual harassment claims
• When I sued for retaliation, Massachusetts law no longer allowed me to include sexual harassment claims

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on bills in the Civil Actions 2 and Court Administration areas, with testimony spanning judicial security, judicial compensation, civil process fees, bar advocate compensation, interstate discovery, defamation protections for sexual assault survivors, and related criminal procedure changes. Chairs Edwards and Day opened with housekeeping rules on testimony limits and written submissions, then called witnesses on each bill in turn. On H. 1766, judicial officers and the Massachusetts Bar Association strongly supported a judicial security bill that would protect judges’ personal information, citing threats, online harassment, swatting, and violence against judges and their families. On H. 1819, judges and the Massachusetts Judges Conference asked for higher compensation, saying Massachusetts judges rank low nationally after cost-of-living adjustment and that pay affects recruitment and retention. The committee also heard support for H. 1582/S. 1183 to raise civil process service fees, with sheriffs saying the fees have been unchanged since 2003 and are needed to cover rising costs, safety equipment, and operations funded by those fees. The committee heard from prosecutors on H. 1604 and H. 1846, which would give district courts concurrent jurisdiction over certain school-threat and leaving-the-scene offenses, allowing prosecutors to handle less serious or panic-driven cases more efficiently while preserving mandatory penalties. CPCS and bar advocates supported H. 1876 on bar advocate compensation, describing a continuing shortage and crisis in indigent defense despite recent pay increases and staffing investments. The Boston Bar Association supported H. 1857, a Massachusetts version of the Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act, saying it would simplify out-of-state discovery and reduce cost and delay. A large portion of the hearing focused on H. 1974/S. 1143, which would protect survivors of sexual assault and harassment from retaliatory defamation suits unless the plaintiff proves actual malice, and would allow fee shifting and damages against abusive suits. Survivors, advocates, and attorneys described threats, legal costs, and chilling effects that silence reporting, while supporters said the bill would protect truthful speech and improve access to counsel. The committee also heard insurance-industry testimony on S. 1101, which would change personal injury protection payment rules to require insurers to tender disputed amounts within 30 days to avoid attorney’s fees; insurers said the bill would curb a growing volume of provider lawsuits and reduce abuse of the no-fault system. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chair closed after all scheduled testimony was complete.

Transcript Highlights:

• individuals can access and deliver health services without fear of discrimination, harassment, or legal retaliation
• 36:41.200> legal discrimination, harassment or legal discrimination, harassment or legal retaliation
• . retaliation. retaliation.

Bills: HB2139, HB1892, HB1893, HB1890, HB2335, HB2468, HB2091, HB2092, HB1878, HB2297, HB2127, HB1785, HB2345, HB2344, HB1780, HB1891, HB2398, HB1764, HB2564, HB1783, HB2567, HB1934, HB1778, HB1781, HB2621, HB2019, HB1803, HB2454, HB1811, HB1943, HB1589, HB1607, HB1851, HB2490, HB2546, HB2568, HB1972, HB2391, HB2575, HB1896, HB2399, HB2004, HB1894, HB2397, HB2498, HB2560, HB2310, HB2214, HB2167, HB2197, HB2116, HB1879, HB1596, HB2096, HB2298, HB2343, HB2566, HB1518, HB2044, HB2336, HB1603, HB1718, HB1740, HB1616, HB2171, HB2022, HB2347, HB1882, HB1708, HB2086, HB2154, HB2027, HB2179, HB1620, HB1913, HB2159, HB1597, HB2121, HB1864, HB2305, HB2576, HB1713, HB1729, HB1756, HB2122, HB2559, HB1743, HB1733, HB1868, HB1723, HB1711, HB1812, HB2515, HB1724, HB1604, HB2270, HB1722, HB1727, HB1920, HB1593

Keywords: invasive species, Queensland longhorn beetle, agriculture, environmental impact, University of Hawaii, Board of Education, Hawaii public schools, teacher representative, nonvoting member, bargaining unit 5, HSTA, teachers union, education governance, school board, executive session, collective bargaining, public school teacher, policy-making body, student representative, military representative

Transcript Highlights:

• of sexual assaults go unreported either because of feelings of shame or embarrassment, fear of retaliation
• feelings of shame or embarrassment fear feelings of shame or embarrassment fear of<00:03:35.120> retaliation
• or<00:03:36.439> not<00:03:36.640> being<00:03:36.959> believed of retaliation
• um or not being believed of retaliation um or not being believed or<00:03:37.920> not<00:03:38.040

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• If I picked my favorite restaurant, I fear as though I would have retaliation from the other restaurant
• though<00:01:59.560> I<00:01:59.680> would<00:01:59.960> have<00:02:00.119> retaliation
• <00:02:00.799> from<00:02:00.960> the though I would have retaliation from the though
• I would have retaliation from the other<00:02:01.280> restaurant<00:02:01.759> so<00:02

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Committee on Rules and Legislative Administration met with a quorum present and began with member introductions, during which members identified their districts and, informally, their favorite restaurants. The committee then turned to a housekeeping resolution, 2025-P100, covering House policies and administrative procedures. The chair explained that the resolution consolidated routine rules updates prepared by House Research. The committee adopted two amendments to the resolution. The A1 amendment gave members more flexibility in how they receive their postage and digital constituent communications allotment. The A2 amendment corrected titles in the resolution. Staff then reviewed the resolution’s contents, including service awards, donated leave, comp time and time cards, remote work, member business services payments, leadership compensation, expense reimbursement, stationery, postage and digital communications, member communication expenses, alcohol and drug policies, legal fee provisions, photographs and digital images, chaplain pay, the high school page program, and the undergraduate internship program. Members asked several questions during discussion. Representative Long confirmed there were no changes to the legal-fee policy. Representative Hollins asked about the high school page stipend, and staff said it was proposed to increase from $10 to $15 per day. Representative Pursell asked about the 50-mile reimbursement threshold for members’ expenses; the chair said it is derived from IRS tax regulations. She also suggested reviewing how other states handle reimbursement. No members of the public testified. After discussion, the committee renewed the motion and adopted the 2025 resolution as amended. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• AG's office, that could get back to the company that they contract with, thereby there could be retaliation
• AG's office, that could get back to the company that they contract with, thereby there could be retaliation
• AG's office, that could get back to the company that they contract with, thereby there could be retaliation
• AG's office, that could get back to the company that they contract with, thereby there could be retaliation
• AG's office, that could get back to the company that they contract with, thereby there could be retaliation

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• told us that they're afraid to speak up about working conditions in their homes because they fear retaliation
• fear retaliation for doing so. fear retaliation for doing so.
• Uh, further ethnographic and qualitative research would illuminate how the threat of retaliation circulates
• <00:19:49.720> circulates<00:19:50.520> across<00:19:50.960> the of retaliation
• circulates across the of retaliation circulates across the sector,<00:19:52.120> inhibiting<00

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• When we talk to consumers, they often mention fears of getting retaliated against by their own HOA in
• <00:41:39.359> When<00:41:39.520> we without fears of retaliation.
• When we without fears of retaliation.
• <00:41:42.880> against<00:41:43.119> by fears of getting retaliated against by fears
• of getting retaliated against by their<00:41:43.520> own<00:41:43.760> HOA<00:41:44.319

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• ,<03:36:41.920> being schools, fearful of retaliation, being schools, fearful of retaliation
• So, I spoke out players would retaliate.
• But retaliation picked up again immediately.
• I was terrified that retaliation would get worse, and it did.
• Um, but the retaliation is just relentless.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 102, which would make informational materials about type 1 diabetes available on the Department of Education website. Senator Ward said the bill is intended to help parents, teachers, and school staff recognize early symptoms such as thirst, frequent urination, fatigue, and weight loss so children can be referred for care before they develop diabetic ketoacidosis. He noted that a newer blood test can identify some children at risk earlier than in the past. Members asked how people would be directed to the website, and Ward said the information would be posted online and also distributed in handouts, with school personnel helping spread awareness. He emphasized the bill is informational only and not a diagnostic or treatment tool. Several supporters testified in favor, including representatives from the Dartmouth Diabetes Link and students with type 1 diabetes who described delayed diagnoses, emergency hospitalizations, and the difficulty of having symptoms misunderstood as stress, athletics, or normal teenage changes. They said the bill could help parents, teachers, and peers recognize warning signs earlier and reduce the risk of life-threatening ketoacidosis. One witness noted that New Hampshire ranks high in childhood type 1 diabetes, and another said even a single person seeing the information could make a difference. A retired diabetes educator and state representative also testified in support. The hearing on SB 102 was then closed. The committee then opened the hearing on Senate Bill 211, which would require school sports teams to be designated as male, female, or co-ed, bar biological males from female-designated teams and locker rooms, and create a cause of action for violations. Senator Avard said the bill responds to constituent concerns and is meant to protect fairness, safety, and privacy for biological females. In questioning, he said girls could still play on boys’ teams, but boys could not play on girls’ teams, and he said he would be open to changes. Opponents, including an attorney from LGBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, argued the bill is substantially the same as a law passed the previous year that was already challenged in federal court and found likely unconstitutional under equal protection and Title IX; they urged the committee to mark it inexpedient to legislate. The transcript cuts off before any committee vote or further action on SB 211.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then the second part of that question is, if somebody in the organization then retaliates against
• In terms of retaliation, retaliation is prohibited, and it is very important to me that we not do that
• <01:30:57.600> against organization then retaliates against organization then retaliates against
• concerns in terms of retaliation concerns in terms of retaliation retaliation<01:32:41.600> is
• is prohibited and it is very retaliation is prohibited and it is very important<01:32:44.920> to<

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• programs to ensure that when staff raise concerns about performance of a grantee that they are not retaliated
• against or ignored, but I'm also concerned about whether or not someone who raised issues might be retaliated
• Someone who raised issues might be retaliated against. Thank you for that question.
• We did not put any specific recommendations related to that instance, as we believe that current retaliation

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee subcommittee heard three State Auditor’s Office performance audits: implementation of the Law Enforcement Training and Community Safety Act, Washington’s digital equity planning, and the Department of Commerce’s Digital Navigator Program. In the law enforcement training audit, the State Auditor found the Criminal Justice Training Commission had developed most required training content but had not developed all required topics, lacked a systematic project management approach, and had weak tools to ensure participation and compliance. Auditors said most officers had not completed the required 40 hours, patrol tactics training was a major bottleneck, and the Commission’s reporting did not clearly show statewide compliance. The Commission said it generally agreed with the recommendations and had begun implementing some changes. Committee members raised concerns about staffing, liability, incentives, and whether the law had enough enforcement “teeth.” In the digital equity audit, auditors said Washington lacked a comprehensive, unified statewide plan, a designated leader, and reliable funding for digital equity efforts. They said existing plans were fragmented, with the NTIA-approved plan the most complete but no longer fully funded after federal changes. The State Auditor recommended the legislature establish oversight authority and require a lead organization to coordinate and evaluate statewide digital equity efforts and develop a unified plan. The Department of Commerce and Office of Equity agreed with the need for clearer leadership and coordination, and a public witness described ongoing coalition and local planning work. Committee members asked about best practices from other states and whether the auditor could provide additional research on coordination models. In the Digital Navigator Program audit, the State Auditor concluded Commerce did not consistently follow core grant-management practices, including competitive award processes, vetting of grantees, clear contracts, performance monitoring, and reimbursement controls. Auditors said Commerce expanded grants without a new competition, lacked adequate documentation and reporting, and paid out millions without sufficient support; they also cited management decisions that overrode staff concerns. Commerce said it had already begun major contract-management reforms, created a new contracts and compliance structure, and was working on risk assessments, documentation standards, and staff training. Members pressed Commerce on accountability, possible recoupment of improper payments, ethics issues, and whether the agency had clear performance metrics for the program. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended after public testimony and committee discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Unfortunately, none of these employees have chosen to testify against ICE due to their fears of retaliation
• Unfortunately, none of these employees have chosen to testify against ICE due to their fears of retaliation
• Unfortunately, none of these employees have chosen to testify against ICE due to their fears of retaliation
• Unfortunately, none of these employees have chosen to testify against ICE due to their fears of retaliation

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: Witnesses and lawmakers discussed the impact of “Operation Metro Surge” and related federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota, describing it as a severe constitutional and humanitarian crisis. John Beler of the ACLU of Minnesota said the organization had received more than 700 reports of constitutional violations and argued the state should protect sensitive spaces, create legal remedies, and limit state involvement in federal surveillance and enforcement. Sen. Erin Maye Quade and other speakers said the operation was still ongoing, caused family separations, economic harm, and trauma in communities, and called on Minnesota Republicans to break with the Trump administration and support accountability. Several business owners testified about direct effects on restaurants and construction workforces. Hano JD Delgado, a restaurant owner, said ICE activity had frightened workers, led to closures and lost business, and recounted alleged mistreatment of employees and himself, including detentions and an incident involving a 15-year-old U.S. citizen. Sarah Lawitch, a Cottage Grove contractor, said her crews and projects were disrupted because workers feared leaving home and that lawmakers should protect constitutional rights and local businesses. Speakers repeatedly framed the issue as racial profiling and an attack on legal residents and citizens, not just undocumented immigrants. Rep. Lee Fininky said she is carrying two bills aimed at federal and local law enforcement practices: one would prohibit officers from wearing masks on duty except for limited safety or health exceptions, and another would require vehicles used to detain people to be clearly marked and equipped with safety features. She and other DFL speakers also discussed a broader package of bills, including a proposal to let Minnesotans hold the federal government accountable and a bill requiring the BCA to investigate shootings. In response to questions, they said they were seeking Republican support but expected the measures to face legal challenges; no votes or formal committee action were taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Even "retaliation" is a word that's been thrown around, and that obviously counters what you've said
• Compliance Officer and working with compliance officers around the country, there are always concerns of retaliation
• They are retaliated against. Their jobs are threatened. Their livelihoods are threatened.
• Retaliation is not acceptable in any form.

Transcript Highlights:

• I've been told that you're well aware of the retaliations against Mark Jones, Mike Taylor, Fred Wynn,
• The retaliation has been corroborated by the Office of Special Counsel, it's been corroborated by my
• previous administration, but I'm just as important to know that these people that have done the retaliation
• Hold these retaliators accountable?

Keywords: Customs and Border Protection, Rodney Scott, border security, asylum, transparency, Hernandez Rojas, migrant treatment, public testimony

Summary: The meeting centered on the nomination of Rodney Scott to serve as the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Throughout the session, various senators expressed concerns regarding CBP's recent practices, including issues related to border security and the treatment of migrants. Questions were raised about Scott's involvement in previous incidents, particularly surrounding the controversial death of Mr. Hernandez Rojas while in custody, which sparked a heated discussion about accountability and transparency in current border policies. Senators emphasized the importance of balancing efficient border security with humane treatment of individuals seeking asylum.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's a second reason that we have this bill and that has to do with retaliation.
• against tenants who complain, retaliate against tenants who organize, and we know, I know from many
• There's a second reason that we have this bill and that has to do with retaliation.
• against tenants who complain, retaliate against tenants who organize, and we know, I know from many
• There's a second reason that we have this bill and that has to do with retaliation.

Keywords: House streaming session for Friday, April 3, 2026, 957, house, all

Summary: The House convened with 113 members present and took up House Bill 774, a local enabling bill on residential landlord-tenant good-cause termination and eviction standards. The sponsor and floor leader described the bill as intended to create stability for families and communities by limiting nonrenewal of leases without good cause, while emphasizing that it would only take effect if adopted by local counties. The bill’s stated good-cause grounds include repeated late rent payment, lease violations, and other specified reasons. Several amendments were offered and debated. One amendment sought to require tenants to keep paying rent, late fees, and other lease obligations during any legal challenge to a nonrenewal; the floor leader argued this was redundant because existing law already requires payment during holdover proceedings, and the House rejected the amendment by roll call, 79 in the negative. Another amendment added a good-cause ground where housing is tied to employment on the property and the employment ends; the floor leader accepted it as a friendly amendment, and it was adopted. A further amendment exempted short-term rentals such as VRBOs from the bill; it was also accepted as friendly and adopted. The House then rejected another amendment that would have changed the late-rent good-cause standard from four notices in a 12-month period to three. The sponsor argued the change would reduce the time and financial burden on small landlords, while the floor leader responded that the bill did not alter existing eviction timelines for nonpayment and that the current four-instance standard was appropriate. Finally, an amendment to extend access to the state’s eviction counsel fund to low-income landlords was offered, with the sponsor arguing for fairness to small property owners; the floor leader opposed it, saying the fund was created to represent low-income tenants and that most landlords are already represented. The transcript cuts off before the final vote on that amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's something our police department was able to focus on, knowing that retaliation kind of leads to
• they're fearful of retaliation. they're fearful of retaliation.
• This bill is one of the most important steps the state can take to solve these cycles of retaliation
• And that's one of retaliated against.
• So they don't want to retaliation.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's just part and parcel retaliation.
• Retaliation is not acceptable in any form.
• <01:51:48.159> They<01:51:48.320> are<01:51:48.560> retaliated wrong there."
• They are retaliated wrong there."
• > in<01:53:58.560> any Retaliation is not acceptable in any Retaliation is not acceptable

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• communications from Caltrans and their contractors when attempting to purchase their homes, and also fear of retaliation
• In addition, employee retaliation whistleblower concerns, a settlement involving a former communications
• officer, Seth Stevens, followed by a reported Title VI retaliation complaint.
• has us focus on the board's whistleblower program. ...and how it handles complaints of employee retaliation
• There has been no whistleblower or retaliation cases brought against the board.

Summary: The committee met as a subcommittee for much of the hearing because it initially lacked a quorum, then later established one and began taking votes. The state auditor gave a status update on ongoing audits, including several JALAC-requested audits in progress, other statutory audits, staffing growth in his office, and the number of new JALAC audits his office could start in the coming months. The committee also heard that one audit request on Prop. 28 was held, and another PUC-related request was moved off consent and heard on the regular calendar. Members then heard and discussed several audit requests. Senator Cervantes presented a request to audit California fusion centers, with witnesses from the FBI and ACLU supporting the need for transparency and oversight; opponents argued the request was politically motivated and could interfere with counterterrorism work. Senator Allen presented a request on CPUC enforcement of Rule 21 interconnection timelines for solar and storage projects, supported by industry and school representatives who described long delays and financial harm, while CPUC staff said the issue was being addressed through workshops and a formal proceeding. Senator Perez presented a request to audit Caltrans’ administration of the former SR 710 extension properties and affordable sales program, citing tenant complaints about maintenance, pricing, and transparency; Caltrans said it was working to complete sales and improve administration. Senator Umberg presented a request to audit the Orange County Board of Education over transparency, contracting, litigation spending, charter oversight, and whistleblower issues, while board representatives said there was no factual basis for an audit and that existing legal remedies had not been invoked. After quorum was established, the committee approved the consent-calendar DMV license revocation audit and then approved the PUC utility timeliness audit and the Caltrans SR 710 audit. The fusion center audit was left on call after a split vote, and the Orange County Board of Education audit continued with testimony from the board’s representatives after the committee had already moved on to other business.

Transcript Highlights:

• They maybe don't face any retaliation from the manufacturers and them no longer sending cars, no longer
• Yes, Representative Newell, that's part of the equation, is to prevent the perceived retaliation on the
• It's the retaliation part.
• And part of that is hoping to prevent future litigation on the retaliation part. ...is hoping to prevent
• future litigation on the retaliation part.

Summary: The committee first deferred House Bill 1102 without hearing it. It then took up House Concurrent Resolution 66, which urges Louisiana Economic Development and other state agencies to continue studying rural parishes’ economic assets, infrastructure, workforce, and development opportunities. Representative Weible and Secretary Bougoir described the resolution as part of a broader effort to align state rural programs and create a strategic framework for rural development. Members emphasized infrastructure, workforce training, local coordination, and retaining young people in rural communities. An amendment requiring LED to report to the legislature by January 1, 2027 was adopted, and HCR 66 was reported favorably as amended. The committee next considered Senate Bill 102, which would allow qualified trade associations for motor vehicle dealers to bring declaratory and injunctive actions against manufacturers on behalf of dealers. Senator Presley and the Louisiana Automobile Dealers Association said the bill would consolidate similar disputes into one action, reduce costs, and help smaller dealers avoid retaliation or uneven litigation. Questions focused on standing, the limited remedies, and whether the bill would affect nontraditional sales models. Technical amendments were adopted, and SB 102 was reported favorably as amended. Senate Bill 521, concerning banks’ continued use of a non-surviving bank’s name after mergers or consolidations, drew the most debate. Senator Boudreau and former Senator Fred Mills said the bill would preserve community-bank identity while following FDIC guidance on clear disclosure and consumer notice. Several members raised concerns about codifying federal guidance, future changes to federal rules, and whether the bill should instead set a fixed transition period; an amendment to limit use of the old name to 24 months was adopted after discussion. Another proposed amendment tying the bill to 1998 FDIC branch-name guidance failed on a roll call vote. The bill, as amended, was then reported favorably. The committee also advanced House Bill 387, which narrows the scope of incidental engineering work by architects and clarifies the state fire marshal’s authority to review plans under both architecture and engineering laws, and House Bill 1228, which updates hearing-aid dealer licensing and consumer-protection rules, including testing periods, cooling-off rights, and refund/cancellation procedures. Both bills were reported favorably with technical amendments. The transcript then shifted to additional measures, including House Bill 975 on Public Service Commission reconstitution and several Senate bills by Senator Abraham on self-storage facilities and contractor licensing, but the provided text cuts off before those items are fully concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have heard from some employees that they do fear retaliation if they stand up and share some of their
• They feel like they would be retaliated against if they were to stand up and publicly support this bill
• They do fear retaliation if they stand up and share some of their concerns.
• They feel like they would be retaliated against if they were to stand up and publicly support this bill
• and emphasize to our agencies that it is imperative in our state law that these agencies do not retaliate

Keywords: 1187, senate, all