Ben Koppelman — Likely the person transcribed as 'Cobbillman'; vote not fully captured in this line.
Ben Koppelman — His name is called in the roll call vote and he votes yes.
Ben Koppelman — His name is mis-transcribed as 'Cappelman' and he votes yes.
Ben Koppelman — He votes yes in the roll call.
Diane Larson — Senator Larson engages in a continuous exchange about placement authority and whether it amounts to release into a less secure setting. The discussion turns to whether placement levels are governed by DOCR policy and what consequences follow if someone in community custody reoffends, including whether the person can return to a lower-security placement.
Diane Larson — Senator Larson is referenced in connection with questions about people repeatedly moving back and forth through transitional facilities and repeated placement/release cycles, with the discussion focusing on how each placement count is tracked.
Diane Larson — Recorded as voting yes.
Diane Larson — Asked for clarification about how the appeal process would work for inmates.
Diane Larson — Was called on by the chair to ask a question.
Diane Larson — Voted no.
Diane Larson — Likely the person transcribed as 'Senator Clary'; raised a question about the bill going to legislative management.
Diane Larson — Raised a question about whether the information should be added to the report rather than placed in administrative rules.
Diane Larson — Suggested moving criteria for facility transfers into the report instead of administrative rules.
Diane Larson — Voted yes in the roll call.
Steve Vetter — Representative Steve Vetter questioned the witness about jail capacity figures, first beginning his inquiry and then asking whether the reported 21% over operational capacity includes people who are waiting in county jails to be transferred.
Steve Vetter — Representative Vetter is called on to proceed and then introduces himself, stating that he represents District 18 in Grand Forks along the Red River near the Minnesota border.
Steve Vetter — Addressed by the speaker as having a question.
Steve Vetter — Representative Steve Vetter questioned Justice Tufti about the Uniform Occupational Licenses of Service Members and Military Spouses Act, asking how it differs from the legislation previously passed and what additional changes it would make compared with current law.
Steve Vetter — Introduced as the next questioner.
Steve Vetter — Representative Vetter is addressed by name as the witness answers the question.
Steve Vetter — Representative Vetter raises concern that the proposal could interfere with the 85% rule for certain crimes and asks whether putting the provision into law would affect sentencing requirements. The response indicates it would not. Later, Vetter refers back to his earlier question while seeking clarification about terminology and timing for transition planning.
Steve Vetter — Representative Vetter asks how the proposal would affect the 85% group and whether there are minor crimes that would be impacted.
Steve Vetter — Representative Vetter asks whether minor alcohol or drug crimes would be affected by the 40% proposal.
Steve Vetter — Representative Vetter raises concerns about whether the policy applies to everything and whether there is enough bed space.
Steve Vetter — Representative Vetter asks whether there will be bed space if short sentences are affected by the proposal.
Steve Vetter — Representative Vetter's concern about cost and population is being answered.
Steve Vetter — Representative Vetter asks whether any crimes should be exempt from the 40% requirement.
Steve Vetter — Representative Vetter is addressed in the response to his question.
Steve Vetter — Representative Vetter is not the mover here; the motion is being handled procedurally by the chair.
Steve Vetter — Representative Vetter is called during the roll call vote and votes no.
Steve Vetter — Representative Vetter votes no in the roll call.
Steve Vetter — Asked how the proposal would work if an inmate were moved from an alternative placement back to a more restrictive facility.
Steve Vetter — Representative Steve Vetter briefly explained that his bill would essentially codify the DOCR director’s earlier presentation by requiring a report to the interim committee, describing it as a simple informational/reporting measure. He then moved the bill. Later references in the same discussion noted that the bill would become the committee’s bill if adopted, meaning it would no longer be Representative Vetter’s bill.
David Clemens — The speaker responds to Representative Clemens' point about capacity and services.
Dale Patten — Likely the 'Chair' being addressed is not clearly identified; transcript also references 'Mayor Dahl' and Representative Christensen in the question handling.
David Hogue — Referenced as having mentioned 99 people waiting in jails; likely a mishearing of a member name.
David Hogue — David Hogue is identified twice as a commission member, with no additional discussion beyond the repeated mention of his role.
David Hogue — Addressed by the witness; likely a transcription error for Senator Murdole/Murdock, but no exact member match is certain.
David Hogue — In this segment, the chair is repeatedly addressed while the committee discusses a drafting fix and procedural concerns, including whether the parole board should be subject to the administrative rule procedure. The mentions are all part of the same ongoing exchange with the chair and do not represent distinct topics.
Alisa Mitskog — Raised a question about the slide on mandatory prison terms for armed offenders and the distinction between placement and release.
Alisa Mitskog — Addressed in the question and response; likely a mis-transcription of Representative Alisa Mitskog? The transcript says Clemine/Clemens, but no exact match is certain.
Alisa Mitskog — Representative Hanson is addressed by name as the speaker clarifies the question.
Alisa Mitskog — Alisa Mitskog is repeatedly addressed by incorrect names in the transcript, including “Representative Queen,” “Representative McQueen,” “Representative Klaman,” and “Representative Clemmyne,” indicating multiple transcription errors while referring to the same member.
Rachel Kometz — Identified herself as the finance director with the Office of the Attorney General's Office and introduced the report.
HB1193 — House Bill 1193 was cited as providing the Attorney General's Office with $3.5 million in grant funding, which was then described as the source of grants for city and county law enforcement agencies.
TJ Brown — Asked whether the program is effective and then made a statement that the funds are appreciated by officers.
TJ Brown — Representative Christensen is named as seconding the motion, though the exact member ID is uncertain because 'Christensen' does not clearly match the expected list.
LaurieBeth Hager — Welcomed as part of legislative management sitting in today.
LaurieBeth Hager — Representative Hager questioned whether there is quantitative, evidence-based proof that the point system is effective, and followed up by asking whether younger drivers care about receiving points and whether there is any education explaining why the points matter. The exchange remained focused on the impact, understanding, and public education surrounding the point system and its insurance implications.