Legislature(2001 - 2002)
2001-05-07 Senate Journal
Full Journal pdf2001-05-07 Senate Journal Page 1651 HB 172 CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 172(FIN) am "An Act relating to therapeutic courts for offenders and to the authorized number of superior court judges" was read the second time. Senator Kelly, Cochair, moved and asked unanimous consent for the adoption of the Finance Senate Committee Substitute offered on page 1617. Senator Ellis objected, then withdrew his objection. There being no further objections, SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 172(FIN) "An Act relating to therapeutic courts for offenders; to the authorized number of superior court judges; amending Rule 35, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date" (technical title change) was adopted and read the second time. Senators Lincoln, Halford, Elton, Austerman, Hoffman, Ellis, Cowdery moved and asked unanimous consent to be shown as cross sponsors on the bill. Without objection, it was so ordered. Senator Leman moved and asked unanimous consent that the bill be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading and placed on final passage. Without objection, it was so ordered. SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 172(FIN) was read the third time. The question being: "Shall SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 172(FIN) "An Act relating to therapeutic courts for offenders; to the authorized number of superior court judges; amending Rule 35, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date" pass the Senate?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 172(FIN) Third Reading - Final Passage Effective Dates/Court Rule YEAS: 20 NAYS: 0 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Austerman, Cowdery, Davis, Donley, Ellis, Elton, Green, Halford, Hoffman, Kelly, Leman, Lincoln, Olson, Pearce, Phillips, Taylor, Therriault, Torgerson, Ward, Wilken 2001-05-07 Senate Journal Page 1652 and so, SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 172 (FIN) passed the Senate. Senator Leman moved and asked unanimous consent that the vote on the passage of the bill be considered the vote on the effective date clauses. Without objection, it was so ordered. Senator Leman moved and asked unanimous consent that the vote on the passage of the bill be considered the vote on the Court Rule change. Without objection, it was so ordered and the bill was referred to the Secretary for engrossment.