Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
01/24/2018 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB63 | |
| HB216 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 63 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
2:18:14 PM
HB 216-TRANSFERS FROM DIVIDEND FUND; CRIMES
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 216, "An Act relating to
restitution; relating to the office of victims' rights; relating
to transfers from the dividend fund; creating the restorative
justice account; relating to appropriations from the restorative
justice account for services for and payments to crime victims,
operating costs of the Violent Crimes Compensation Board,
operation of domestic violence and sexual assault programs,
mental health services and substance abuse treatment for
offenders, and incarceration costs; relating to delinquent
minors; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that two additional fiscal notes were added
to the committee packet that day.
2:19:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to a letter in the
committee packet, dated 12/18/17, from Sara Race, Director of
the Permanent Fund Dividend Division of the Department of
Revenue, to Pat Pitney, Director of the Office of Management and
Budget. He said the letter spells out what amount of money
would become part of the fund proposed under HB 216. He
indicated he would like clarification regarding the calculations
in the letter.
2:20:12 PM
SARA RACE, Director, Central Office, Permanent Fund Dividend
Division, Department of Revenue (DOR), recommended
Representative Eastman look at a calculation breakdown in the
committee packet [titled "FY 19 PFD Fund Appropriation
Calculation for Departments of Corrections and Public Safety"].
She said the division bases the amount available for calculation
on the dividend available two years ago. She said [4,588]
individuals [from the Department of Corrections (DOC) and 665
from the Department of Public Safety (DPS)] who applied for a
dividend in 2017 were later identified as [incarcerated] felons
or misdemeanants or [sentenced felons]. She related that the
division can determine eligibility on those cases as it would
for any other application it receives and identify how many
would otherwise have been eligible [had they not been denied as
a felon or misdemeanant]. That calculation results in a
percentage shown on the breakdown. She pointed out a couple
minor adjustments that are made to result in [an estimated
number of otherwise eligible applicants], and that number is
multiplied by the dividend amount to come up with the [total
appropriation].
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out the amount of [11,429, under
the category of estimated number of otherwise eligible
applicants], and he asked how the division accounts for
individuals whose PFD is already "going toward some kind of
restitution."
MS. RACE answered that when the division is determining
eligibility a garnishment has not yet been applied. Those who
filed could have had garnishments attached to their
applications, but they would have been denied because they were
a felon or misdemeanant.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Ms. Race if she has any idea how
many of the [11,429] might fall into the category of those whose
PFDs are "already not going to them" but instead are being
directed toward restitution for crimes victims, child support,
for example.
MS. RACE answered that the division would not have the number of
individuals that fall into that category "for the entire
population"; however, the division would have "a pretty good
idea of how many that would be of the 4,500 individuals that did
apply for a dividend." The division could look at those
applications to determine whether there were "garnishments that
would have otherwise been applied if they had been paid and not
denied." In response to a follow-up question, she said she does
not have that number available right now.
2:23:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for confirmation that the state is
"taking permanent fund dividends from ineligible people that
normally would not, because of a conviction, ... be allowed to
receive the dividend."
MS. RACE confirmed that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said basically the state is taking that
money and redistributing it, and in [2017] 94 percent "went to
the offender[s] themselves to pay for their healthcare in the
last year according to the last testimony or helping pay, I
think it was 6 percent, to restitution." She inquired whether,
if the state did not do that, the money from ineligible people
would go back into the corpus or earnings reserve or be
distributed among other Alaskans.
MS. RACE answered as follows:
The calculation is part of statute now, and the amount
available that is calculated through this process is
available for appropriation. So, past that point I
really can't speak to how it is broken into the 94
percent that you speak to that's going to Department
of Corrections.
MS. RACE indicated that if statute changed regarding individuals
that fall into this category, then the money would go back into
the dividend fund and then become available for the calculation
process for individuals that are receiving a dividend.
2:26:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether DOC is an eligible recipient
of the fund.
MS. RACE answered, "They are one of the individuals that are
listed in the priority order available for appropriation."
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP clarified there are five or six eligible
recipients and, as Representative Reinbold pointed out, one
recipient is "pretty much consuming all the fund." He said it
is the criminal fund, and he said he thinks the question is
whether that money, if not going to an inmate fund, would
"rotate back out of the criminal fund" or "stay in the criminal
fund itself."
MS. RACE replied that the money available to the criminal fund
is appropriated directly from the dividend fund. She offered
her understand that if no part of this was listed in statute,
then that money would be available to pay dividends.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP summarized that "these eligible recipients"
are paid out of the criminal fund through a formula that the
Office of Management and Budget applies.
MS. RACE answered as follows:
The money that we calculate here is what we refer to
OMB through the [memorandum], and from that point
forward, if it wasn't appropriated, ... I'm not sure I
could answer that question.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to the 1980 law that established
the crime victim compensation fund, and indicated that under
SSHB 216, the amount of the dividends that would otherwise have
been paid to those who are not eligible because of their
criminal convictions would be appropriated annually from the
dividend fund to the crime victim compensation fund. He
referred to [Representative Reinbold's] question as to whether
those dividends would go somewhere else if not to the fund, and
he said he is not aware that that has ever happened but would
like to know if it has.
MS. RACE responded that she is not aware that [that has ever
happened].
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP concluded, "So, it's available to go to
eligible recipients as far as you know rather than being re-
appropriated for other purposes."
MS. RACE answered that's correct.
2:29:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that he would like to know how
many of 4,500 incarcerated persons "already ... did not have
access to the PFD because it had already been taken by the
courts to ... go to someone who deserved it more." He said he
suspects a number of Alaskans deserve to see those funds, and he
is hesitant to "maintain the system" wherein "the state takes
those funds."
2:30:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP emphasized that when a felon or repeat
misdemeanant is ineligible to receive a dividend "that money is
not going to anything else but victim compensation." He
continued as follows:
So, they would have an excellent argument to go right
to [the Office of Victims' Rights] (OVR), who is going
to be taking care of restitutions, the crime victim
compensation fund, or eligible nonprofit organizations
that provide grants for crime victims and show them
their order. And this bill prioritizes victims first
out of this fund, which right now they're victims
last. So, if we're truly concerned about victims,
you're right, there may be a small percentage of
people who were on a payment plan - that dividend is
not lost, it is going directly to victim restoration,
but it's not like it's going to ... something else.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP clarified that SSHB 216 would bring a
significantly greater quantity of resource to restoring
survivors of crime than anything under current law.
2:31:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said the decision made several years ago to put
dividend money for which people are not eligible into a fund is
not a decision up for discussion. The focus today is how to
prioritize the money that has been set aside.
CHAIR CLAMAN said he would entertain amendments to SSHB 216, and
he noted that Legislative Legal and Research Services has
permission to make any technical and conforming changes to the
bill based on any amendments adopted.
2:33:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 1, to
SSHB 216, labeled 30-LS0572\T.1, Martin, 1/18/18, which read as
follows:
Page 6, lines 8 - 11:
Delete all material and insert:
"(3) nonprofit organizations to provide
grants for services for crime victims and domestic
violence and sexual assault programs;
(4) nonprofit organizations to provide
grants for mental health services and substance abuse
treatment for offenders; and"
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS deferred to his staff to speak to
Amendment 1.
2:33:58 PM
NOAH STAR, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Alaska
State Legislature, spoke to Amendment 1 to SSHB 216 on behalf of
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins. He explained the proposed
amendment would switch the order of the third and fourth
priorities listed under SSHB 216 such that "crime victims and
domestic violence and sexual assault programs" would be listed
before "mental health services and substance abuse treatment for
offenders".
2:34:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD emphasized her support for Amendment 1.
2:35:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER asked the bill sponsor why the two
organizations were listed the way they are listed in SSHB 216.
2:35:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that both recipients are important.
He stated support for Amendment 1.
2:36:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER removed his objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 1. There being no further objection, Amendment
1 was adopted.
2:36:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to adopt Amendment 2, to SSHB 216,
labeled 30-LS0572\T.2, Martin, 1/22/18, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 6, following "costs;":
Insert "relating to contributions from
dividends;"
Page 8, following line 5:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 8. AS 43.23.062(a) is amended to read:
(a) Notwithstanding AS 43.23.069, the Department
of Revenue shall prepare the electronic Alaska
permanent fund dividend application to allow an
applicant who files electronically to direct that
money be subtracted from the dividend payment and
contributed to the crime victim compensation fund
(AS 18.67.162), the peace officer and firefighter
survivors' fund, or [TO] one or more of the
educational organizations, community foundations, or
charitable organizations that appear on the
contribution list contained in the application. A
contribution to the crime victim compensation fund,
the peace officer and firefighter survivors' fund or
to an organization may be $25, $50, $75, $100, or
more, in increments of $50, up to the total amount of
the permanent fund dividend that the applicant is
entitled to receive. If the total amount of
contributions elected by an applicant exceeds the
amount of the permanent fund dividend that the
applicant is entitled to receive, contributions shall
be deducted from the dividend in the order of priority
elected by the applicant on the application until the
entire amount of the dividend that the applicant is
entitled to receive is allocated for contribution. The
electronic dividend application form must include
notice that seven percent of the money contributed
will be used for administrative costs incurred in
implementing this section, and money from the dividend
fund will not be used for that purpose.
* Sec. 9. AS 43.23.062(b) is amended to read:
(b) The department shall list each educational
organization, community foundation, or charitable
organization eligible under (c) and (d) of this
section, each university campus that applies under (l)
of this section, the crime victim compensation fund,
and the peace officer and firefighter survivors' fund
on the contribution list. The department shall
maintain an electronic database for the contribution
list that is accessible to the public and that permits
searches by organization or fund name, geographic
location, and type. The department shall provide a
statement of the contributions made by an individual
that is suitable for federal income tax purposes to
each individual who elects to contribute under (a) of
this section.
* Sec. 10. AS 43.23.062(m) is amended to read:
(m) In addition to the application fee in (f) of
this section, the department shall withhold a
coordination fee from each organization, foundation,
or university campus that receives contributions under
this section in the immediately preceding dividend
year. The coordination fee for an organization,
foundation, or university campus that receives
contributions under this section shall be seven
percent of the amount of contributions reported by the
department under (j) of this section for the
organization, foundation, or university campus for the
immediately preceding dividend year. The coordination
fee shall be separately accounted for under
AS 37.05.142 and shall be accounted for separately
from the application fee collected under (f) of this
section. The annual estimated balance in the account
maintained under AS 37.05.142 for coordination fees
collected under this subsection may be appropriated
for costs of administering this section. The
department may not withhold a coordination fee for
contributions to the crime victim compensation fund or
the peace officer and firefighter survivors' fund."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.
2:36:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD prefaced her explanation of Amendment 2
by relating that a lot of people are not giving as much [in
donations] as they used to give. She said the proposed
amendment would allow eligible recipients of the PFD the option
of donating their PFD monies to the crime victim compensation
fund through an existing method called ["Click, Pick, Give"].
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated his support of Amendment 2. He
added, "The Restorative Justice Account, which holds the
appropriation, it's ... number one priority is the crime victim
compensation fund, which Representative Reinbold has identified;
so, this would just move it into the top priority voluntarily by
people on the ... Pick, Click, and Give-type of thing, I guess."
2:38:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER said he likes Amendment 2 but wonders if
the Permanent Fund Dividend Division may be concerned that
adding too many recipient choices on Pick, Click, Give may
"dampen the giving spirit."
2:38:43 PM
MS. RACE responded that the division has not done specific
studies on the issue, but she offered her understanding that the
Alaska Community Foundation, which houses the Pick, Click, Give
program, would have data. She said there are search tools
available to help individuals narrow the search for charitable
organizations on Pick, Click, Give.
2:39:23 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for confirmation that there are service
charges associated with the Pick, Click, Give program such that
100 percent of a donation does not go to the donor's choice(s).
MS. RACE confirmed that 7 percent of a donation is collected in
administrative fees to cover the running of the program.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if the same 7 percent would be taken out if
someone chose the crime victim compensation fund under Pick,
Click, Give, even though it is a state funded program rather
than a nonprofit organization.
MS. RACE answered that the peace officer and fire fighter
survivors' fund is excluded from the 7 percent administrative
fee and so, too, would be the crime victim compensation fund.
2:40:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered his understanding that one of the
reasons for the administrative cost is that there is a
verification process involved. He echoed Ms. Race's comment
that the crime victim compensation fund would be exempt.
2:41:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER removed his objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 2. There being no further objection, Amendment
2 was adopted.
2:41:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to adopt Amendment 3, to SSHB 216,
labeled 30-LS0572\T.5, Martin, 1/22/18, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 23, following "Law":
Insert "If the Department of Law receives a
response to the notice before the 90-day period, the
Department of Law may begin collection on the
restitution."
Page 9, line 9, following "Law":
Insert "If the Department of Law receives a
response to the notice before the 90-day period, the
Department of Law may begin collection on the
restitution."
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.
2:41:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP spoke to Amendment 3. He said it would
clarify that once the Department of Law receives notice from the
crime victim, the department may immediately begin "aggressively
providing assistance." The clarification would, under Amendment
3, be applied to two sections of SSHB 216.
2:42:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER asked if "this" would hamper a person,
who at first decided not to ask for restitution but later
decides he/she wants restitution.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered:
Once an order is given, the Department of Law gives
notice to the eligible recipient that they have 90
days to elect to collect the restitution without the
assistance of the Department of Law.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP directed attention to language on page 2,
line 23, of SSHB 216, which read:
A recipient may inform the Department of Law at a
later time of the recipient's election to collect the
restitution without the assistance of the Department
of Law
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said there is no time [constraint] on that
provision, so a person could decide a year later he/she does not
want help. He said he does not know if Representative Fansler's
question was in terms of a year later someone deciding he/she
does want help. He said he thinks it makes sense in the law to
have some time limitation.
CHAIR CLAMAN directed attention to the answer to the issue,
which is in Section 3, on page 2, lines 26-29, which read as
follows:
A recipient who has elected under this section to
collect restitution without the assistance of the
Department of Law may not later request the services
of that department to collect the restitution.
2:44:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP pointed out that that is current law.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER indicated that is the answer he was
seeking.
2:44:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he thinks everyone is assuming that
the proposed phrase "receives a response to the notice" - as
read in Amendment 3 - means a person wants to "move forward on
this." He questioned whether the committee should specify what
type of response.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said the context of the sentence in its
entirety - "If the Department of Law receives a response to the
notice before the 90-day period, the Department of Law may begin
collection on the restitution" - is obvious, because the
department would not begin collection on the restitution if the
person had said he/she did not want it.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if there is any intent for a
minimum waiting period.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that the key word in the sentence
is "before", which allows the process to start immediately - as
soon as the department is notified.
2:46:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER withdrew his objection to Amendment 3.
There being no further objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
2:46:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to adopt Amendment 4, to SSHB 216,
labeled 30-LS0572\T.6, Martin, 1/22/18, which read as follows:
Page 3, lines 7 - 9:
Delete all material and insert:
"(b) The office of victims' rights shall make
restitution payments to eligible victims in the
following priority order:"
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.
2:46:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that language on page 3, lines 7-8, of
SSHB 216, read: "If an order of restitution provides for
payment to more than one crime victim". Representative Kopp
said that sounds like a restitution order for multiple people.
Amendment 4 would highlight the priority order, which reflects
current practice.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how OVR would be instructed to deal
with instances where there is more than one crime victim if that
language is changed under Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that under the current system, once
a case is adjudicated and it is time to issue a restitution
order, the court would notify OVR of the restitution orders,
which would enable the office to connect with the victims to
offer assistance in getting victims' orders paid and work with
the Permanent Fund Dividend Division. He added, "This actually
empowers OVR in a way they have not been empowered before to
represent victims in getting them restitution."
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said if Representative Eastman's question
pertains to multiple victims on a single incident, then those
individuals are distinct victims and would receive distinct
restitution orders. The priority [as shown on page 3, lines 10-
12, of SSHB 216], would remain as follows:
(1) a natural person;
(2) private businesses;
(3) state and local governments.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered a situation in which there are
two crimes and a victim from each one, and he asked if the
Office of Victims' Rights would prioritize the first natural
person and get PFD funds to him/her but not be able to get funds
to the other person whose chronological order is second.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that Representative Eastman's
question is answered on [page 3], lines 13-15, which read:
(c) The office of victims' rights shall adopt
regulations under AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure
Act) to establish a process for payments of
restitution balances from the restorative justice
account established in AS 43.23.048.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated, "It's very difficult in statute to
get down into the weeds of what needs to happen on the
regulation level." Regulation cannot violate statute and
carries out the will of statutes, he said. He concluded, "We
are putting into the law the vehicle from which regulation is
enabled, which will answer those thornier questions, and
certainly there is public comment periods and things like that
for us to comment on."
2:50:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER removed his objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 4. There being no further objection, Amendment
4 was adopted.
2:50:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 5, to SSHB 216,
labeled 30-LS0572\T.3, Martin, 1/23/18, which read as follows:
Page 4, line 31:
Delete "if they had been eligible"
Insert "[IF THEY HAD BEEN ELIGIBLE]"
Page 5, line 7:
Delete "if they had been eligible"
Insert "[IF THEY HAD BEEN ELIGIBLE]"
Page 5, lines 30 - 31:
Delete "if they had been eligible"
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.
2:51:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN spoke to Amendment 5. He explained that
by removing the words "if they had been eligible", the
assumption would be that those individuals would have been
eligible, which is the process he said the department uses
currently wherein if someone is incarcerated and convicted, then
the assumption is that he/she would have been eligible but
because of the conviction/incarceration he/she is not. He said
that is what triggers the money to restorative justice account.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP responded that Representative Eastman had
identified a legislative drafting style. He suggested reading
the first part of [paragraph (6)], on page 4, line 29, and
adjoining it with the final words on line 31, such that it read:
"the total amount that would have been paid" "if they had been
eligible". He said this language has been in statute for 30
years and has worked for the Department of Revenue.
Representative Kopp again suggested compacting the words in
[subsection (b)], on page 5, lines 4 and 7, to read: "total
amount that would have been paid" "if they had been eligible".
He said deleting "if they had been eligible" just changes
drafting style; it's a different way of saying the same thing.
He indicated that adopting Amendment 5 could complicate things,
because the committee would be "messing with a section of law
that's worked well for a long time."
2:53:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD indicated that she would have supported
the proposed amendment "if we weren't collecting from anybody
ineligible." However, she opined that deleting "if they had
been eligible" is undermining, because "who are we to stop ...
if they'd never been eligible in the first place?" She said she
would oppose Amendment 5.
2:54:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER said he gathers that Amendment 5 is just
wordsmithing. He asked if it was Representative Eastman's
thought to delete the words as a way of making the language more
concise.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN indicated that Amendment 5 is directed to
someone who is not privy to the way the language has been
interpreted by the department. He said the assumption is that
"we're only dealing with individuals who are eligible and then,
because of their conviction or incarceration, they are rendered
ineligible." He said there are many requirements to be
eligible; one of them is that a person must apply. He
continued:
But that's not the way that ... the department has
interpreted it. They have interpreted it as though
those words were not, in fact, there. They've
interpreted it as though if you are incarcerated or if
you have received a conviction, ... you're still in
Alaska, you've ... accomplished your eligibility and
so forth, and so we'll just ... presume that
eligibility. And so, ... what I've suggested through
this amendment is that instead of obliging the
department to sort of make that interpretive decision,
make it more clear in the language that we are not, in
fact, requiring anyone to apply, so that then they can
be found ineligible by virtue of their conviction or
incarceration.
2:56:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP suggested there may be some confusion in the
matter. He offered clarification as follows:
You are presumed in the law to not be eligible,
period, even if you have applied. ... It doesn't
matter; ... that is now an ineligible dividend, and it
goes into this crime [victim] compensation fund.
2:56:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered a scenario in which someone comes
to Alaska, commits a crime on day one in the state, and ends up
in jail. She said the person would not only be ineligible for a
PFD because of being incarcerated, but he/she would also be
ineligible [for not having met the minimum residency
requirement]. She asked if that person's money would go into
[the crime victim compensation fund].
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said the answer is no because the person was
already not eligible [before he/she committed the crime]. He
said [SSHB 216] addresses AS 43.23.005(d), which pertains to the
criminal aspects regarding disqualification. He said there are
other [subsections], including one that addresses a residency
requirement. The proposed legislation focuses on a person who
is otherwise eligible but for subsection (d) of the statute.
2:59:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned how a person who is not
eligible [for a PFD] would "impact this situation."
MS. RACE pointed back to the aforementioned calculation page and
continued as follows:
Because we do have 4,500 individuals that do apply for
the dividend, we are able to walk through the standard
eligibility process, which would then speak to any
other eligibility requirements that those individuals
did not meet, which is why a percentage is applied to
the total number of individuals that are reported from
DPS and Public Safety rather than 100 percent.
3:00:40 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that Amendment 5 would be left pending.
He noted that Representative Eastman had supplied a memorandum
addressing the issue, and he said he would distribute it to the
committee in future. He noted the last paragraph of the
memorandum written by Hillary Martin advises caution in amending
a statute that has existed for years and has been interpreted
one way.
[SSHB 216 was held over.]