This webcast is a service of SDPB.

Good, useful, and full of wonder. SDPB.

All right, I'll call the executive board meeting to order. Uh, Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll?

Deibert?

Here.

Kolbeck? Excuse me.

Mehlhaff?

Here.

Otten?

Pischke?

Here.

Aylward?

Here.

Gosch?

Healy?

Here.

Heermann?

Here.

Jamison.

Mulder.

Odenbach.

Larson.

Here.

Hansen.

Here.

Karr.

Here.

Mr. Chair, you have a quorum.

We have a quorum. Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay, so with that, I'm going to turn the gavel over to Senator Melhoff. He's going to go through the minutes as well as the report from the Technology Subcommittee, and then I'd ask that we go at ease. I should be there in the room within a few minutes, and I apologize for the delay and appreciate everybody's consideration. Kind of rolling with us this morning. So, Senator Beloff, will you please take over?

Okay, thank you, Senator Carr. At this time on the agenda, we have the approval of the minutes. Has anybody had a chance to look them over, and can I get a motion to approve? I have a motion from Senator Otten to approve the minutes, second from Senator Deibert. Seeing no comments on the motion, it will be a voice vote. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, the same. The minutes are approved. This time we'll move on to our next item, which is the Technology Subcommittee report. And we have Elijah, if you'd like to introduce yourself and Start with the report. Thank you.

Elijah Rodriguez, LRC's Chief IT Officer. This morning, the Technology Subcommittee met. I gave the subcommittee an update about the LRC's digital accessibility efforts. So digital accessibility, what that means is ensuring our websites, apps, digital content, all of our documents, that are public-facing are designed in a way that can be used by everyone, including people with a disability such as visual, auditory, modal, motor, or cognitive disabilities. Where this is coming from is 2 years ago the DOJ promulgated a rule under ADA Title II requiring government entities to meet a certain— or certain standards pertaining to web accessibility. The deadline for that applies to the legislature, so a government agency that serves a population of 50,000 people or more, is April 26th, 2027. We have to comply by that date. So what we've been doing, we've, we've had some internal efforts. Our great development team has been cleaning up our websites. We've been working on some of our public-facing documents, also modifying MyLRC to make them more accessibility-friendly and ensure we meet compliance. LRC staff has also broken into some We've established several workgroups to write our digital accessibility statement and policy, and also to come up with a process for the public to report accessibility issues. All of this will be posted on our website here pretty soon. Even after all of our efforts, we're by no means digital accessibility experts, no matter how much Me or anyone on our staff reads through that DOJ rule or those WCAG standards that we have to comply to. I mean, we're not experts in that. So, one thing we're going to do is get external help also.

Mm-hmm.

We're partnering with USC's Center for Digital Accessibility to help us with our digital accessibility. Digital accessibility effort. So one thing USD is going to do for us is they're going to audit our digital assets. So they're going to do a full audit of our website, MyLRC, and our public-facing documents. What that audit comprises of is some automated scanning. They'll use some tools to automate scan, and plus they'll do some manual testing and scanning using assistive technologies such as screen readers and other assistive technologies that people with disabilities use to make sure our assets can be used or correctly with those technologies. Another thing USD is going to do for us is staff training. So basically all LRC staff that composes documents that are going to be public-facing and end up on our website needs to know how to compose those documents in a way that meets those digital accessibility standards up front. Because from the IT side, there is no easy button where we can press an easy button and make those documents or content accessible. It has to be done right. Up front. USD is also going to help us with document remediation as needed. If there's any documents that need to be fixed, if we're shorthanded, running out of time, getting too close to that deadline, they're going to assist us with some of that document remediation. So, questions or comments about our digital accessibility efforts before I move on to our next topic?

No. Does anybody have any questions for Elijah? I just have one. So the, the relationship that you're entering into with USD, is that contractual, or is it just kind of a gentleman's agreement that they're gonna help us, or are you actually entering into some kind of formal agreement with Where there's a cost to that?

It is a formal agreement. It is contractual. We are pretty close to having that contract finalized. They are going to be billing us for those services. We've come up with a preliminary estimate of $23,500.

And that, that will just be the contract cost, or will there be billable hours up to that amount?

It'd be billable hours up to that amount. That would be the max contract, is that $23,500?

Okay, thank you. Is there any other questions? All right, you please proceed.

The second topic discussed this morning at the Technology Subcommittee was legislator devices for the 2027-28 school year. 2028 legislative term. Historically, we've had the Technology Subcommittee make a decision on what devices are going to be used for legislators for the upcoming term. We've had 2 options: an iPad and a laptop. On the iPad side, there's not going to be much of a change. An iPad is an iPad. They don't really change much in shapes or sizes throughout the years, so that's pretty much going to be the same. One thing we will change is the model that we use. We typically use an iPad Pro, which is basically the top of the line of iPads. After doing some analysis, it looks like we can get away with using an iPad Air, which is considered a lower model. But as far as performance and specifications, there is not much of a difference. If you try to look at them and see the difference, you will not tell the difference physically. One trade-off that there will be is you will be losing the face login capability that you do have with an iPad Pro. That's not available with the iPad Air, so you will be— if you use Face Login, you will be losing that capability. A capability that replaces that, though, is fingerprint login or biometric login. So there's that trade-off. On the laptop side, that's where we're really going to see a difference. Historically, we've been using Dell as our laptop supplier, and they've currently gone through a complete product line revamp. The laptops that you currently have are no longer available, or that whole product line is no longer available. They don't have a new year model of that product that you currently have. That laptop had a 15.6-inch screen, I believe. The options now going forward are a smaller 14-inch screen or a larger 16-inch screen. There are some trade-offs to both options. For the 14-inch screen, there is an overall smaller footprint of that laptop, so in the chassis you can't fit as large a battery as you can with the larger laptops. So you will be losing some battery life by going the smaller option. You will also be losing a 10-key if you, if you use a 10-key on your keyboard off to the side. The 14-inch does not have that. So a little bit less battery life, no 10-key are the cons of that. Other than that, it looks like a pretty good laptop. For the 16-inch, Downsides of that is the size. I don't know how they managed to create a significantly, significantly bigger footprint, uh, compared to a 15.6-inch, which you currently have, by increasing it 3, um, 4 tenths of an inch. That 16-inch is significantly bigger, so it weighs more. Pros with that model is longer battery life, of course, and a bigger screen. If you like to multitask, have multiple documents and windows pulled up, that 16-inch will serve you better. There is a significant cost increase regardless of which model you go with. So when we Last purchased our fleet of laptops for legislators a few years ago. That cost us around $87,000 just for the laptops, not iPads, not the iPads included. For looking at a comparable model for replacing the laptops that you currently have, we're looking at over $128,000 for laptops of the same specifications, performance, all of that. So prices have gone up around $40,000 as far as the cost for the legislature for this round of device replacement. And I've heard prices are going to increase again here in July. With so many members of the Technology Subcommittee being remote, They could not come to a consensus on which laptop the legislature is going to go with for the next term just because they couldn't really physically see them, touch them. I mean, we have them up here, so they basically do not have a preference and wanted to leave that decision to the full e-board and the members that are here so that you can actually do some physical comparison of those devices. So any questions for me, Mr. Chair?

Representative Aylward.

Yeah, I'll just mention too, at first I was siding with the smaller one, but the more I look at them, you know, you have a little more hand space with that larger screen. And kind of the thing that put me over the edge here, the bigger one is actually slightly cheaper.

Any other questions, comments?

Mr. Chair, I was also siding with the smaller one, and I think the larger one make— also makes more sense, especially when they put the screens up next to each other. I think with the amount of information and research and all the different articles and, you know, everything that you pull up during the day, it would make more sense to have the larger one. And Representative Hansen was the person to mention that, and that was a really great point.

Representative Jamison.

Yeah, question. Uh, you mentioned the price increase for the Dells. What about the Apple? Did you have that?

There is no— well, for the higher— actually, overall, yes, there is a price increase for the Apples, and that was one of the main drivers of going from the iPad Pro to the iPad Air. We actually will be saving quite a bit of money making that change, and I can pull up some exact numbers if you give me a minute here.

Okay.

Last round of legislator devices, when we bought iPads, that cost the legislature close to $55,000. By moving down to an iPad Air, that's going to cost us $35,000 this time around. So around $20,000 savings there.

Thank you. Thank you.

Representative Mulder.

Thank you, Elijah. What is the, um, Percentage in the legislature buying or using iPads versus laptops?

Well, we currently have 33 iPad users, which puts us at 72 laptop users. Okay, thanks.

Senator Deibert.

Thank you, thank you, Elijah. A couple things, um, just a statement first. I prefer the larger one because I do use the 10-key myself. But, um, if I remember right, correct me if I'm wrong, the predecessor we have to the current ones, the biggest complaint was battery life. Is that correct?

That is correct. Those old laptops from the 2023-2024 term, that was the biggest complaint was battery life, and those were a smaller laptop. I believe those were a 13-something or a 14-inch, so that's when we went to your current 15.6-inch, and we've actually been getting a lot of positive feedback about the battery life of the laptops you have now.

Thank you. Elijah, with the— you said that the larger one was less expensive than the smaller that you're looking at, is that correct?

Yeah, it's pretty minimal, probably about $13 or $14 per unit. So in the scheme of things overall, when we buy a whole fleet of 75 of them, it's only about an $1,100 difference for the total purchase.

And then lastly, uh, Why would we update? Do we really need to?

Yes, that's, that's what we've been doing. I, I believe even since before I arrived, we've been cycling the devices every legislative term. So there are a few considerations, one of them being is that we have to have Some laptops available for other purposes, such as interns. Interns get old legislative laptops. Also, when you consider device lifecycle management, if we do a partial replacement of the fleet, first year it might be fine. 2 years down the road, then you're dealing with 2 different models on 2 different life cycles. 4 years down the road is where it becomes very, very complex to try to manage that. Plus, um, you, you might have a shortage of laptops that are— that would be available to use by interns. So it's just a lot cleaner and easier to replace the The entire fleet every 2 years, as opposed to trying to juggle that every 2 years, because that juggling act will fall apart, I mean, by year 4 pretty easily. Another consideration is that after we've accounted for laptops that are going to be reused for interns and other purposes, we, we've been having a buyback program where we've let legislators buy those devices back. Um, for the last 4 years, every 2 years of that buyback program, I believe we've sold $18,000 worth of devices back to legislature— legislators, which then comes back into our general fund.

So Sorry, I did have one more follow-up if I may.

Go ahead, follow up.

Um, so when you did the counting of laptops versus, uh, non-laptops, you, uh, is everybody using an LRC computer or are there some that are using just their own?

I believe there are only one or two that didn't take Okay.

Any other questions? Elijah, I heard you talk about some of the cost differences. I don't know if you covered this in the subcommittee. What do we have for a budget for technology, for the use of— for the computers, and even going back to the ADA conversation? I think we have a budget for technology. It wasn't, it wasn't ADA, it was what, digital? Yeah.

Yeah, that's correct, ADA or digital accessibility. Yeah, we, we do have a budget. This is within our budget. Um, I think Jeff can probably elaborate more on that.

Jeff, would you like to take a stab at it?

Sure. Um, Jeff Mehlhaff, Deputy Director, Fiscal Chief. Um, so we budget— last time we budgeted about $190,000 for laptops and iPad replacement because we never know what that cost inflation is going to be. And we try to budget that on, like Elijah was saying, that 2-year cycle. So we try to spend that money every 2 years. And we know it's a big expense, and with the way prices have been increasing in RAM, we wanted to make sure there was enough budget so we could replace all the laptops. So whatever we don't spend, we probably go towards that ADA contract.

Okay.

Yeah, I just want to make sure we, we know that we're not just spending money, but it's money that we have that's set aside for us. Yes, is that Mr. Sellick? I mean, Representative Jamison.

Right on. So thank you. One more question if I could, and maybe I missed it. I apologize if I did. The buyback option for legislators generates a certain amount of revenue.

Is—

do you have that kind of number handy, or are there—

$18,000 every 2 years, so every sales cycle that we replace devices and sell the old ones.

You raise about $18,000?

Yeah.

And, uh, the buyback for the iPad and, and the Dell, what are the prices?

The prices are determined, um, by the state's property management office. Um, they do an analysis, give me a price. I communicate that price to legislators. I send an email out, um, every fall. And, um, so, so those prices change. Um, last cycle, I believe The iPads were somewhere around $400, $450. Laptops, probably a little less.

Other questions? Senator Mehlhaff.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just, uh, so the ones that aren't bought by legislators, do they just go to surplus?

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

All right, I know we have quite a few members online. I just want to make sure That we don't have somebody online with a question. Can you pull up Teams and see if there's any? Okay, no hands up online. Last call for questions in the room. Representative Aylward.

You accepting motions? I don't have a question.

Um, so I, I just want to make sure I was clear, um, because I was listening, you know, on online or remotely. The subcommittee did not make a recommendation on the actual devices. They wanted the committee as a whole to make that determination. I heard several people, I think, talk about the 16-inch, and that makes sense to me too for a lot of reasons, as well as it has the numerical component too. I mean, some of us that have been in fiscal and things like that deal with numbers. I think that's super nice. I know I use it a lot. So I think it would be appropriate to make a motion and have a discussion.

So I'll make the motion to accept the 16-inch Dell laptops and then moving down to the iPads that were the— I believe it was the iPad Air— and use those for the upcoming 2 legislative sessions.

Second.

Okay. We have a motion by Representative Aylward, seconded by Senator Otten. Comments on the motion?

Yeah, just real quick, they've been stated already, but you know, you have more battery power with the 16-inch. It's also slightly cheaper. And then just overall, you know, trying to go the cheaper options, still getting a quality product. So I think this is the right route to go.

Senator Deibert. I'm sorry, I thought you had a I was trying to second mine. I'm sorry. Okay. Any other comments online? Okay. This would be a voice vote. And again, it's to make the recommendation to our IT officer to pursue the Dell 16-inch iPad Air. I think that's essentially the motion for the next upcoming session for our devices. All in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Excellent. Okay, opposed? Nay. That motion passes. All right, thank you. Elijah, do you have anything else today?

I do not.

Okay, how are we doing on security-wise? We doing good?

I think we're doing good.

How's our numbers look? Our guys clicking on the, the, the traps that you guys set up?

We've had a few here and there.

Yeah. Was it me?

Here this past session, I went ahead and scheduled our Phish simulations for an entire year out. So even when I started seeing them, I forgot what the schedule was, and they surprised me even. But the last go-round, I believe we had 2 or 3 legislators that clicked and even 1 staff.

Okay.

I got something that popped up, said I needed to change my password. I didn't click on it. Do you think I need to change my password? Am I safe with the current password?

Probably not, because our passwords never expire.

All right, I knew it. Okay, any other comments or questions for Elijah before we move on? All right, thanks Elijah, appreciate it. I want to thank Senator Mehlhoff for filling in for me for a few minutes. Thank you very much. All right, give me a second while I look at the agenda. So our next order of business is some appointments. We're going to start with the Investment Council.

Let me see that.

We have one appointment to make. I believe Matt Clark, our investment officer for the state, is online. Is that— Matt, are you still online with us?

Yes, sir.

We have one appointment to do today. I wanted to give you the opportunity, if there's anything you wanted to share about the council, the board, the board makeup, before we make our decision and appoint somebody. Do you got— you want to share just a couple minutes?

Uh, sure. Thank you. Um, yes, I'll, I'll point out that, uh, uh, there is a statute that, that requires that all— that, that council members cannot all be of the same party. Uh, currently, as I understand, uh, uh, the, uh, Membership is all Republicans except for one member whose term is expiring. Therefore, the appointment of the new council member cannot be a Republican to comply with that law. After getting some direction from staff to try to identify some potential candidates, I had suggested that there was a person that had applied a couple of years or had indicated interest a couple years ago. And I suggested that when the person on the board who was of the Democratic Party expired, that that might be an excellent opportunity for them to apply. And they did go ahead and apply. This person, Rita Edwards, myself and another senior teammate met through the South Dakota State University Foundation. Rita was chair of the audit committee there for a number of years, and I received very glowing comments about her from folks at the SDSU Foundation. And I think I saw that there were some references for her from SDSU leadership. As well as from a former council member, Jeff Nelson. And that's, that's all the comments I was planning to make about the council unless there are other questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Clark. Any questions for Mr. Clark?

Okay.

Well, I'm going to open it up for a motion for the appointment. Yes, Representative Mulder.

Mr.

Chair, I move that we appoint Ms. Rita Edwards to the Investment Council.

Thank you. I have a motion by Representative Mulder, seconded by Representative Jamison, to appoint Rita Edwards To the Investment Council, comments?

Go ahead.

Yes, thanks, Mr. Chair. Uh, yeah, obviously, uh, the law that Matt Clark just mentioned, or Mr. Clark just mentioned, about having to appoint a Democrat so we don't have everyone of the same party, uh, Ms. Edwards fits that category. Um, also just her educational background, as noted in her reference, with, um, graduating from law school at the University of Maryland, um, some time at SDSU, her time on the foundation at SDSU, along with her civic service that she has outlined, all appear that she makes an excellent candidate to join the Investment Council.

Okay, thank you. Any further comments?

Mr.

Chair?

Yes, Representative Aylward.

I'm going to make a substitute motion.

Okay.

To appoint Renee Randall. To the board.

Okay, I have a substitute motion by Representative Aylward. Is there a second? Okay, well, that motion will fail for lack of a second. We're back to the original motion. Any further comments Any discussion on the original motion? Let me check online, please. Okay. Seeing none, this will be a voice vote. And again, this is to appoint Rita Edwards to the Investment Council Board. The motion was made by Representative Mulder, seconded by Representative Jamison. All in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, all opposed, nay. Ayes have it. The motion passes. All right, thank you. We're going to move to the Uniform Laws Commission. We have one appointment there to make as an executive board. I'll open it up for discussion or action. Well, you know what, I'm going to pause. I'm going to back up. I'm going to ask Rachel, tell us and all of our listeners what the Uniform Law Commission is and what this appointee would be doing.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Rachel Pearson, Chief of Legislative Operations for the Legislative Research Council. So the Commission on Uniform Legislation, it is governed by SDCL 211.1, or 211, excuse me. And it is made up of people that are learned in the law. They're appointed by the executive board. The terms are 3 years, and they are tasked with the promotion of uniform legislation in the United States. So there is a National Commission on Uniform Legislation that meets yearly. These commissioners then are invited to that national meeting, and they go to that. And so beyond that, that is, that is what these commissioners do. And then they, they can report back to the executive board.

How long is the term?

3 years.

Okay.

Any questions? Senator Mehlhauff.

Thank you. Yeah, a question is, is there any interaction or with the Uniform Commercial Code and that commission that puts that together, or is this a separate, uh, commission?

Is our—

is your question, is there, there talk between the executive board?

Coordination, coordination between this and what the UCC is.

So once the appointments are made by the executive board, we then We send a letter, an appointment letter, and we let the National Commission know. They then contact the individuals. As far as the LRC office, we don't have any coordination with them meeting aside from we know that they're going, and then we pay their salary or their travel reimbursements. And then there is— it is dictated by statute 211.2 that they shall meet at the state capitol at least once in 2 years.

Okay.

And they, um, they basically keep a record of their transactions. So in the past, they haven't reported back to the executive board, but I think that's something that the current members are looking at doing.

Follow-up.

Go ahead.

So, so just for clarity, so these people, so that we appoint, will actually be the ones that are working on updates to the Uniform Commercial Code Is there an annual update? No?

Mr. Chairman, this is Jon.

Yes, is that Representative Hansen?

Yeah, I don't know if he got his answer, but yes, the Uniform Laws Committee is the— or commission or whatever you call it— that is the organization that oversees the uniform laws. Thank you.

Okay, any other questions or discussion? Any motions? Senator Otten. I would move that we would accept Amber Hulse for the Uniform Commission.

Second.

Okay, so I have a motion by Senator Otten, seconded by Senator Deibert, to appoint Senator Amber Hulse to the Uniform Laws Commission. Comments on that? Any further comments? Go ahead, Senator Deibert.

Thank you. Well, I think Senator Hulse has proven that she can be a good liaison with information that comes from outside the legislative body and through these other groups, so I think she'll be a great representative. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others online? Comments on the motion? Okay. I'll just add that I think Senator Holz, this is an area she's been interested in, has been delving into, and I think would be an asset to us and to the Uniform Law Commission as well. So with that, this will be a voice vote. Again, it's appointment of Senator Holz to the Uniform Law Commission. Motion was made by Senator Otten, seconded by Senator Deibert. All in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you. Opposed, nay. The motion passes. All right. We're going to move to the Indian Medicaid Managed Care Model Task Force. There's 3 appointments. And I'm going to ask Rachel to just walk us through this task force was newly created. Can you Give us some context to what it is, what these folks will be spending their time doing.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Again, Rachel Pearson, Chief of Legislative Operations for the Legislative Research Council. So this task force was created by House Bill 1006 this year, and the membership is based off— is, is a conglomeration of representatives from each federally recognized Indian tribe, the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, The Secretary of the Department of Health, Secretary of Tribal Relations. We have 2 members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker, 2 members of the Senate appointed by the President Pro Tem. There's a representative of the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, and then we have the following members appointed by the Executive Board, which would be 1 member representing a healthcare provider, 1 member representing a healthcare insurance provider, and another— 1 member representing a healthcare provider. One representing one health— or is one healthcare administrator. So this task force is going to be administered by the Department of Social Services. They're going to seek input from the state and federal executive branches, branch agencies, representatives of the Indian tribes, representatives of the healthcare industry, and other relevant stakeholders. And they will report their findings and recommendations to together with any proposed legislation to the governor on or before December 1st, 2028.

Thank you very much. Any questions about this task force or the positions that are being appointed? So there's 3 different positions, as was indicated: a health insurance provider, a healthcare provider, and a healthcare administrator. We need one of each of those to be filled today by this executive board. I would open up for discussion and/or motions. I want to take one at a time. So I would— let's talk about the healthcare insurance provider first and/or a motion to appoint.

Mr.

Chair.

Senator Millholland. I would make a motion to appoint Nathan Ovenden as the insurance provider for the Indian Medicaid managed care I have a motion by Senator Mehlhoff, seconded by Senator Otten, to appoint Nathan Ovenden to the healthcare insurance provider appointee for the task force. Any comments?

Mr. Chair, just in reading over his application of interest, he seems to be well qualified, and I think he's the best applicant we have for that position.

Any other comments? Any online? Okay. Seeing none, this is for the appointment of Nathan Ovenden to the Task Force on Indian Medicaid Managed Care. All in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. Okay. That motion passes. Thank you. Well, next we're going to take up the position for the healthcare provider on this task force and open it up for some discussion and/or motion. Representative Mulder.

I move that we appoint Theresa Borman to the provider position on the task force.

Second.

Okay, I have a motion by Representative Mulder, seconded by Senator Melhoff, to appoint Theresa Borman To the task force, any comments?

I think again, just Ms. Borman's application, looking at it with her degree from North Dakota School of Medicine, just her experience. I know she currently is living on a reservation as well and working with patients from a local tribe. And also she just took the initiative to reach out and explain herself to the Medical Association and others, at least to me. She's expressing her interest to be placed, so I think she makes a good candidate to be placed as a provider on the task force.

Further comments? Anybody online? Seeing none, we have a motion to appoint Theresa Borman as the healthcare provider for the Indian Medicaid Managed Care Model Task Force. It was made by Representative Mulder, seconded by Senator Mehlhoff. All in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. That motion passes. Thank you. Okay, we have one position left, and this is for the healthcare administrator for this task force. I would open it up for discussion and/or action.

Mr.

Chair.

Senator Melhoff.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, at this time, I'd like to I move to recommend that we appoint Chantelle Krebs to the healthcare administrator position on the task force.

Second.

We have a motion by Senator Mehlhaff, seconded by Senator Otten, to appoint Chantelle Krebs to the task force. Discussion— or I mean, I'm sorry, comments?

Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

Thank you. I think many of us probably over the years have had opportunities to work with Ms. Krebs, she has extensive background in government, both in the legislative and executive side of government, and now has been the regional CEO for one of our major healthcare organizations in central South Dakota. So I think she's very well qualified and knows the ropes and has a lot of experience that would serve the Task force well.

Thank you. Further comments? I have one online.

It is—

oh, Representative Healy. Representative Healy, did you have a comment?

Mr. Chair, no, I don't. I don't think— I didn't believe I had my arm raised. Sorry.

Okay, that's fine. Any other comments? Seeing none, I have a motion by Senator Melhoff, seconded by Senator Otten, to appoint Chantel Krebs as the healthcare administrator to the Indian Medicaid Managed Care Model Task Force. All in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. That motion passes. All right. Well, I want to congratulate the appointees. I look forward to hearing from them and watching the outcome of their work over the next year or 2. That is the end of our— sorry?

We need 2 appointments from you.

At ease for a minute. So it looks like we have— I'm going to move to the next item on the agenda if that's okay with everybody. All right, we'll keep things moving. It's the 2026 interim House and Senate travel funds allocation. I have Jeff Mehlhoff here. He's our Deputy Director and Chief Fiscal Analyst. Mr. Mehlhoff.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll have Joey put that up on the screen for you, um, and he'll share the screen so everyone online can see it. This document is very similar to what we did last year. Instead of doing fiscal year, I did interim because that way you can see by interim, because we're going into the '26 interim. It's an easier way to compare year to year instead of fiscal year. So I'm going to cover the highlights, and then if you have any specific questions, let me know. The budget remains the same, and off to the side there you can kind of see how the budget for each one is calculated. The salary per diem, that is only applied in in-state meetings. So if a legislator goes to an in-state meeting like, like e-board, for example, coming to e-board, you do get that per diem salary. for coming to an official legislative in-state meeting. If you go to an out-of-state meeting like NCSL, you are not, um, paid a salary for that. So they're just kind of outlining what that budget is here, and then it has all the details, the information broken out by— there, now, now you can see the document on your screen.

Thank you.

So as I was saying, you can see what that cost has been for in-state per DM salary, what the out-of-state travel is, the number of trips broken out by House and Senate, and then you can kind of see what that Uniform Laws Commission cost is, the interim meeting, in-state meetings, what that cost is. So it's just a breakdown of all the costs. If you have any questions I'll stand by. The total expense last year, we got close to spending everything we had budgeted. And what the total expense really comes down to is how many meetings there are, there are, how many people are on each committee. That really drives that expense. And then how much out-of-state meetings legislators go to. So I'll stand by for any questions, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Any questions from the committee? Any questions online? No questions? Okay. Okay, seeing no questions, I would entertain a motion to approve the travel fund allocation.

Mr. Chair.

Senator Mehlhaff.

I would make a motion to approve the 2026 interim House travel fund allocation. Second.

I'm gonna— give me a second, please. Okay, Senator, the statute calls for it to be a specific amount for the House and a specific amount for the Senate. Would you be able to amend your motion, please? It's on the screen there.

So I would move to allocate the 2026 non-session interim member budget for per diem and travel costs in the amount of $555,477, with $308,684 allocated to the House, $227,971 allocated to the Senate.

Thank you.

I have a motion by Senator Mehlhoff, seconded by Representative Mulder. To set the travel costs as it was indicated in red by Senator Melhoff. Further discussion or comments on that? Any other comments on that motion online? This would be a voice vote, right? I can do a voice vote. This would be a voice vote. All in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no or nay?

No.

Okay. Motion passes. Okay, so at this time, that concludes most of our business. We have some internal Staffing discussion that needs to happen. We're going to go into executive session. We'll come out of that, and then we'll share online some of the thoughts. And if there's any conclusion regarding our staff, we will present that. So what I need is a motion to go into executive session.

So moved.

I have a motion by Senator Mehlhoff, seconded by Senator Otten to go into executive session. All in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. Okay, we will go into executive session. So we're going to take— we're going to go offline, and I need a motion to come out of the executive session.

So moved.

I have a motion by Senator Mehlhoff, seconded by Senator Otten, to come out of executive session. It's a voice vote. All in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. We are out of executive session and we are live. We're coming back and we're going to discuss some LRC staffing. And I want to just acknowledge the director of LRC, John McCullough, has resigned, and we now are determining what's the process Uh, for LRC and for that director position. And I appreciate the discussion. And I also just want to say how much we will all miss John McCullough. Tremendous asset. What he helped set up and build here, I, I am very grateful for. And I hope he knows that and wish him and his family the best of luck. So with that, I'd open it up for a discussion and/or motion regarding the LRC director position.

Mr.

Chair.

Representative Mulder.

I move that we appoint Jeff Mehlhaff as the interim director at the salary of the current or former director of the LRC, and that The executive committee made up of Senator DeCar, Larson, and Hansen conduct an application process and review for the new permanent LRC director to be completed by no later than August 31st, 2026.

I have a motion by Representative Mulder, seconded by Senator Otten. And it was to appoint Jeff Mehlhoff the interim director to conduct an application process and review for the LRC director and have the executive committee members do so and also set a timeline to be concluded by August 31st. I think I did a pretty good job paraphrasing that. Any discussion?

Mr. Chair.

Go ahead.

I just think it captures the intent of our executive session conversation and believing that we have a great quality candidate but want to ensure that through the process that he is set up for success or a future director set up for success by just making sure that we have the best available serving in peer.

Okay, other comments on the motion? Representative Jamison.

Yeah, I like that motion as well. I think Jeff has proved himself well And is a perfect fit for the interim position and the, uh, the interest and intent to continue the good culture that's been created in the, in the department and the service provided by the LRC. So I see them as a great choice.

Thank you. Other comments on the motion? Is there anybody online? I can't see. Okay. Any other comments? Okay. Well, I'll just conclude with saying I've worked with Jeff for 10 years. He's invaluable to our fiscal process. I know he's been part— he's been the deputy director and been part of the leadership discussions that John McCullough, as director, had conducted. It wasn't just John McCullough in a vacuum. He relied on our senior staff, and I think that was kind of a secret to his success here. And I'm looking forward to working with Jeff in this future role, and I appreciate if he will accept serving as interim. I guess we haven't even asked him. Is it too late? It's a motion. So it's a motion, and if this passes, I'm going to ask you a question, Jeff. Just so you know. All right. This will be a voice vote. I'm not going to reread the motion unless somebody requests it. All in favor are going to say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no.

Aye.

Thank you. Opposed, nay. The motion passes. So, Jeff Mehlhaff, would you be willing to— Serve as our interim director.

Yes, Mr. Chair, I will serve as the interim director.

Thank you, I appreciate that. It's a temporary position, and I think you heard the rest of the process that's going to unfold. So we look forward to working with you and Rachel and the others to go implement that process. All right, at this time, that concludes any formal business we have. Is there anything else that's good for the order? Nothing in the room. Senator Odden, go ahead.

Move to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn, seconded by Representative Jamison. This is a voice vote. All in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. We are adjourned. Thank you.