Board meeting approves minutes, members discuss AI executive-order implications and committee work

Speaker 1 called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. and opened the agenda. The first formal action was approval of the minutes from the Oct. 8, 2025 meeting. "I move we approve the minutes of the October 8 meeting, 2025 as distributed," Speaker 2 said; Speaker 3 seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

Members then acknowledged a legislative report prepared by Jamie and agreed to enter items 1 through 5 of that report into the minutes. The meeting moved into round-robin updates on commissioner activities. Speaker 5 said they remain active on the UCC committee, which is recommending a study of Articles 3 and 4 and warranty issues, serve on a study committee addressing choice-of-law and foreign-law questions, and participate on a drafting committee working on revisions related to the Indian Child Welfare Act. Speaker 5 said the drafting committee has met virtually and expects another meeting in Philadelphia in March.

Speaker 2 said they hope to attend the annual meeting in Chicago and expressed interest in a newly forming study committee on restricted charitable gifts. Speaker 4 said they will fill a vacancy on the parliamentary committee. Speaker 1 described additional study work under their division, including work on child support orders affecting foster children (noting Washington already limits orders in that instance), committees on children’s online safety that raise First Amendment issues, an APA study committee, and a committee focused on mental privacy.

The group also addressed administrative and travel matters. Speaker 4 said travel funding is in place and asked that annual dues be sent to Speaker 4 or Shane to avoid duplicate invoices to other members. A question about gala tickets’ tax-deductible portion came from Speaker 3; Speaker 4 said they would check with the foundation and report back.

One of the more substantive exchanges concerned how states are interpreting a White House executive order on state regulation of artificial intelligence. Speaker 5 asked whether attorney general offices or legislative counsel had issued guidance. "The executive order that came out of the White House said that states couldn't regulate," Speaker 5 said, and Speaker 4 agreed that they had not seen formal guidance but described an internal LegTech policy that provides loose guidance for legislative agencies on permissible uses. Speaker 1 said the matter briefly arose at an executive committee midyear meeting in Pasadena in January in the context of liability for automated technology and that no clear consensus emerged; Speaker 1 said there was reluctance to disband the relevant committee and suggested outreach to the committee chair for guidance.

The meeting concluded with a reminder about upcoming meetings and travel, and Speaker 1 adjourned the session at 4:16 p.m.