Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/03/2013 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB22 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | SB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 3, 2013
1:45 p.m.
1:45:28 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:45 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Scott Kawasaki, Alternate
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Guttenberg
ALSO PRESENT
Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Nancy
Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court System; Leslie
Houston, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Tracy Wallenberg, Deputy Director, Public Defender's
Agency, Anchorage; Laure Morton, Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, Juneau
SUMMARY
CSSB 22 CRIMES; VICTIMS; CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT
CSSB 22 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 22(FIN)
"An Act relating to the commencement of actions for
felony sex trafficking and felony human trafficking;
relating to the crime of sexual assault; relating to
the crime of unlawful contact; relating to forfeiture
for certain crimes involving prostitution; relating to
the time in which to commence certain prosecutions;
relating to release in a prosecution for stalking or a
crime involving domestic violence or for violation of
a condition of release in connection with a crime
involving domestic violence; relating to interception
of private communications for certain sex trafficking
or human trafficking offenses; relating to use of
evidence of sexual conduct concerning victims of
certain crimes; relating to consideration at
sentencing of the effect of a crime on the victim;
relating to the time to make an application for credit
for time served in a treatment program or while in
other custody; relating to suspending imposition of
sentence for sex trafficking; relating to consecutive
sentences for convictions of certain crimes involving
child pornography or indecent materials to minors;
relating to the referral of sexual felonies to a
three-judge panel; relating to the definition of
'sexual felony' for sentencing and probation for
conviction of certain crimes; relating to the
definition of 'sex offense' regarding sex offender
registration; relating to the definition of 'victim
counseling centers' for disclosure of certain
communications concerning sexual assault or domestic
violence; relating to violent crimes compensation;
relating to certain information in retention election
of judges concerning sentencing of persons convicted
of felonies; relating to remission of sentences for
certain sexual felony offenders; relating to forms for
sexual assault, stalking, and domestic violence
protective orders; relating to the subpoena power of
the attorney general in cases involving the use of an
Internet service account; relating to reasonable
efforts in child-in-need-of-aid cases involving sexual
abuse or sex offender registration; relating to
mandatory reporting by athletic coaches of child abuse
or neglect; making conforming amendments; amending
Rules 16, 32.1(b)(1), and 32.2(a), Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure, and Rules 404(a) and (b), Alaska
Rules of Evidence; and providing for an effective
date."
1:45:33 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
stated Section 41 was an amendment to evidence rule 404
(b)(2). She explained that under the evidence rule,
evidence of the defendants prior bad acts were not
generally admissible in the prosecution of the individual;
however, some exceptions were set out in court rule. She
shared that the three exceptions dealt with prior bad acts
of sexual or physical abuse of a child, domestic violence
crimes and sexual assault offences. She relayed that prior
acts of sexual or physical abuse of a child had a ten-year
look back limit on use of prior bad act evidence; the other
two did not. She said the reasoning was that in those cases
the perpetrator could be in jail for those 10 years, and
not in a position to reoffend. She stated that by the time
they were released, the department would be unable to use
the evidence for prosecution. She reminded the committee
that in every case the evidence would be subject to
weighing by the judge to determine relevance. She concluded
that the section would omit the mandatory 10 year limit.
1:48:53 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze requested an explanation of the
contingency language in Section 42.
Ms. Carpeneti stated that Section 42 noted that the changes
in the rape shield provision in AS 124.504(5)(a), which
provided a witness in an abuse case protection of their
sexual conduct before or after the alleged offense. The
change would require a two-thirds vote by the legislature.
Additionally, Section 44 noted the required two-thirds vote
on the statute, which indirectly affected the court rule,
to take effect.
Co-Chair Stoltze probed the conditional affect.
1:50:56 PM
Ms. Carpeneti stated that the language had been added by
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), and that she had not seen
it before. She thought that the language made the further
notation that the statute would not go into effect without
the two-thirds vote by the legislature. She noted that
adding such language was not the custom for LAA.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked Ms. Carpeneti to report back to the
committee as to why LAA had added the language.
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, relayed
that the court took no issue with the direct court rule
changes or the indirect court rule amendments. She said
that the changes would be implemented should they receive
the required majority vote of the legislature.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked how the court system would proceed
if a problem was found with the changes.
Ms. Meade replied that the court system did not make a
practice of taking a position on legislation.
1:53:12 PM
Representative Wilson queried the impetus for the
legislation.
Ms. Meade stated that the bill expanded the definition of
sexual assault crimes and would extend statutes of
limitations.
1:54:54 PM
Ms. Carpeneti added that the bill did not add substantive
criminal laws to statute, except the prohibition of parole
officers and probation officers having sex with people on
parole or probation. She furthered that the bill dealt
primarily with procedure and how the courts would proceed
with criminal prosecutions.
Representative Wilson thought that putting a GPS on a
person would be a substantial change to the law. She
wondered why the statute of limitations needed to be
changed. She hoped that there were statistics to back up
the concerns addressed in the legislation.
1:56:29 PM
Representative Wilson expressed deep concern with the
legislation.
Ms. Carpeneti discussed the GPS aspect of the bill. She
offered that a judge would examine several variables when
addressing a person that had been charged with slaking, or
a crime involving domestic violence; such as, the danger
that the person presented to the victim or their family or
the possibility that the accused would not show up for
hearings. She contended that the GPS monitoring device
would allow the person the freedom from confinement while
awaiting trial.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that the GPS could be considered as
adding latitude for the defendant.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that, under the circumstances, it
would be less expensive that holding a person in jail.
Co-Chair Stoltze understood that it was not an option
already retained by the court.
Ms. Carpeneti touched on the constitutional implications of
the GPS. She explained that if a person was charged with a
crime, and the judge was not convinced that the conditions
of release would keep the community safe, or that the
person would show up for hearings, the person would be held
in jail.
1:58:50 PM
Representative Wilson asked if the same procedure would
apply for other types of crimes.
Ms. Carpeneti replied no.
Representative Wilson suggested that other crimes were as
severe as sexual assault and domestic violence. She stated
that she was unwilling to give up her discretion easily.
Representative Gara asked if the GPS could be used as a
condition of probation and whether the GPS would apply
exclusively to sex trafficking or to all level of sex abuse
crimes.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the bill would allow for GPS in
cases charging crimes involving domestic violence in
addition to assault. She believed that in some cases ankle
monitoring was used during probationary periods. She
referred further details to the Department of Corrections
(DOC). She noted that the bill did not address the use of
ankle monitoring during probation.
Representative Gara understood that the GPS could be used
on convicted rapists.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that under the bill, GPS monitoring
could be used provided that the rape was a crime of
domestic violence.
Representative Gara asked why the crime would have to fall
under the umbrella of domestic violence.
Ms. Carpeneti stated that the fear of the perpetrator
knowing where a victim lived was not as immediate in cases
of sexual assault by a stranger. She added that because
domestic violence and stalking cases often resulted in
confrontations after the fact that put the victim at risk,
those were the cases to begin the practice of using the
relatively new GPS system.
2:01:22 PM
Representative Gara asked why it would not apply in first
degree rape cases. He contested that in small communities
attackers could locate their victims easily. He wondered if
first degree rape could be added to the bill.
2:02:19 PM
Ms. Carpeneti stated that the legislation had been drafted
considering all opinions. She stated that the drafters had
not wanted to cast too wide a net.
Representative Gara asked if the department would have a
problem with first degree raped being added to the bill.
Ms. Carpeneti believed that it could be discussed. She
added that the bill would require DOC to adopt guidelines
for working with the Department of Public Safety (DPS),
which lead her to believe that the addition could be
considered once guidelines were adopted.
Co-Chair Stoltze suggested that the idea could be further
vetted and that a committee substitute could be brought to
the table.
2:04:01 PM
Representative Gara expressed concern that prior bad acts,
that were unrelated to the immediate case being tried,
could be allowed into evidence.
Ms. Carpeneti stated that the evidentiary rule exception
only applied to sexual or physical abuse of a minor and not
to sex trafficking. She relayed that the issues were always
subject to judicial weighing. If the trial was 20 years
after the first offence, then that would be taken into
consideration by the presiding judge. She stressed that the
bill would allow a judge the ability to weigh evidence over
10 years old.
2:06:49 PM
Representative Gara understood the courts would weigh the
evidence to determine whether it was prohibitive or
prejudicial and that the legislation would not change that
analysis.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the weigh in process would not
change under the bill.
Representative Holmes asked if there were any
constitutional concerns surrounding requiring the GPS for
people who had been charged, and then were released on bail
awaiting trial.
Ms. Carpeneti stated that the person could be kept in jail,
but the GPS would be less burdensome for all involved.
2:09:13 PM
Representative Munoz thought that the language on Page 19,
line 22, which spoke to athletic coaches and paid
assistants reporting responsibilities, should be clarified.
Co-Chair Stoltze requested an amendment that spoke to the
concerns.
Representative Munoz referred to Page 19, line 17. She
queried the definition of the "Fatality Review Team."
2:11:31 PM
Ms. Carpeneti replied that he Child Fatality Team
investigated the cause of death of a child under certain
circumstances.
Representative Munoz noted that the vagueness of the
language on Section 21, page 11, line 28. She hoped that
the language could be made clearer.
2:12:25 PM
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the language in the bill had
been written in response to a court decision that used the
same language.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that this section contained one of
the more important provisions in the bill.
Ms. Carpeneti agreed to be in communication with
Representative Munoz concerning the language and its
clarity.
2:13:00 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman requested a copy of the legislative
findings and intent referred to Section 1. He asked if
there had been a change in the requirements for mandatory
sexual offender registration.
Ms. Carpeneti stated that the bill would add a provision to
the sexual offender registry and would clarify one of the
provisions in the sex offender registry requirement. She
referred to Page 13, line 9, which was a conforming
amendment that dealt with the sex-trafficking of children
under the age of 20. She furthered that a requirement the
people over the age of 18, or 3 years older than the child,
who patronized a child prostitute, would be prosecuted as a
Class C felony and would have to register as a sex
offender.
2:16:03 PM
Ms. Carpeneti recalled a court decision had found that
people convicted before 1994 did not have to register as
sex offenders. She stated that she could provide more
information concerning the matter at a later date.
Vice-Chair Neuman hoped to see language that required all
felony sexual offenders in the state to register.
2:16:44 PM
Representative Kawasaki wondered how frequently a GPS would
be used in lieu of actual jail time.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that she would need to research the
question and would provide an answer at a later date.
Representative Kawasaki understood that the GPS was
intended to provide the extra level of safety for victims,
but asserted that the most effective way to protect victims
would be to keep perpetrators in jail.
Representative Kawasaki asked about Section 15, which
discussed authorization to intercept communications. He
requested discussion and justification for allowing the
interception of communications for sex trafficking and
human trafficking cases.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the Attorney General, or a
designee for the Attorney General, could apply to a judge
for wiretapping permission. She furthered that it must be
limited to time and parties, and was not used very often
due to the labor intensive nature of the procedure. She
said that the rationale for adding sex and human
trafficking to authorized list was because they were crimes
that would most likely involve communication among parties
perpetrating the offense. She contended that it would be a
good way for law enforcement to obtain useful evidence.
2:20:49 PM
Representative Kawasaki wondered whether the bill broadened
the authority of the Attorney General.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that the authority already existed
and that the procedure was among the regular procedures
already practiced.
Representative Kawasaki stated that imminent danger was a
reasonable excuse for the interception of communication,
but he requested further justification from law
enforcement.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the defense could request the
GPS.
Ms. Carpeneti stated yes.
2:22:56 PM
Representative Thompson noted Section 10, page 6. He
thought that the forfeiture of property for a misdemeanor
crime was too extreme.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether there was currently a
statute allowing municipalities to seize property for a
misdemeanor offense.
Ms. Carpeneti believed so. She added that the state did not
seize property for a misdemeanor offense very often. She
asserted that the policy call should be decided by the
legislature. She shared that originally, the bill allowed
the possibility of forfeiture for the patron of the
prostitute, as the governor was most interested in focusing
on the demand side of prostitution prevention. She
furthered that the section in current law required
mandatory forfeiture and did not require a conviction. The
changes to the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee
resulted in the forfeiture applying to the patron and the
prostitute, but only after a conviction.
Representative Costello queried areas where the state sex
offender registry was out of compliance with federal
requirements, specifically school information. She
understood that the state did not require school
information as an element subject to public information.
She expressed concern that high school students working for
credit in college classes could be unknowingly exposed to
an offender. She asked if there was anything currently in
statute, or the bill, that addressed the issue.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the issue was not addressed in
the legislation. She said that under current Alaska law,
juveniles were not required to register. She explained that
children that were convicted of a sex offense in adult
court would be required to register.
2:26:18 PM
Representative Costello clarified that she was inquiring
about adult registered offenders who might enroll in
college classes. She expressed concern that a minor
enrolled in college classes could be exposed to a
registered sex offender. She noted that federal law
required that the registry include any school that the
offender might be enrolled.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the bill did not speak to the
issue.
Co-Chair Stoltze OPENED public testimony.
2:27:45 PM
TRACY WALLENBERG, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
AGENCY, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke to Section
38, which amended the criminal rules regarding the
regulation of discovering child pornography cases. She
stated that the provision would only permit legal material
to be sent to an expert for analysis if the expert was out-
of-state. She furthered that in-state experts retained by
the defense would be required to transport their equipment
to a law enforcement or prosecution facility where the
information would be made available. She expressed concern
that the provision would make using an in-state expert
either cost prohibitive or impractical for some experts due
to the time it would take them to set up their equipment.
She added that this would have the unintended consequence
of increasing the distribution of materials, because it
would have to be sent to an out-of-state expert, or subject
the rule Change to a constitutional challenge as the
defense would not have access to local expert who could be
more qualified. She said that putting the inside and
outside experts on equal footing would promote the intent
of the rule change, which was to curb the duplication of
the discovery materials. She stated that a change had been
made in the companion bill, HB 23, to permit sending
information to an in-state expert.
2:32:16 PM
Representative Holmes stated that an amendment on members
desks would delete the words "outside the state" from the
legislation. She asked if there was further language that
the testifier wanted deleted.
Ms. Wallenberg hoped for clarification to the change made
on Line 12 of the section that the court could order
information to be sent to an expert in or out-of-state and
that it would not be sufficient for it to be made available
at only a prosecution facility.
2:33:49 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
2:35:51 PM
Representative Gara queried a provision in the bill that
would negate "good time" for high-level offenders. He
understood that "good time" was granted to prisoners that
the department determined had become non-threatening to
society. He asked how "good time" was determined and how
the department stood on withholding it from the offenders
described in the bill.
LESLIE HOUSTON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, replied that she could not explain how "good
time" was applied or taken away. She said that the
department could speak to the issue at a later date. She
added that the department was neutral on the provision in
the bill that would remove the "good time."
Representative Gara maintained his inquiry.
Ms. Houston shared that Ronald Taylor, Deputy Commissioner,
Department of Corrections could be made available for
questions at the next hearing of the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze expressed disappointment that the
department was not prepared with an answer.
2:38:24 PM
Representative Wilson raised the issue of time spent in a
treatment center.
Ms. Houston stated that DOL could provide further
information on the subject.
2:39:18 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked about the indeterminate
fiscal note. He hoped that there could be a rough estimate
given of the number of prisoners who might not be released
due to "good time" ineligibility.
Representative Kawasaki questioned the GPS guidelines. He
noted that there were two sections of the bill that spoke
to guidelines for monitoring that would be adopted by DOC,
in consultation with the Department of Public Safety (DPS).
He requested an explanation of the current monitoring
system.
Ms. Houston responded that the department was not currently
using active GPS monitoring. She said that traditional,
standard electronic monitoring was used and that the most
popular device could detect the scent of alcohol.
Representative Kawasaki understood that the DOC did not
track the physical location of offenders.
Ms. Houston replied that the technology was being used in
the Lower 48. She said that the department had researched
GPS and found that it would be possible to use in the
state. She felt that it should be used statewide but that
satellites might not be readily available, and that "urban
canyons" could be a problem.
Representative Kawasaki asked if the department could
comment on GPS monitoring for release on bail.
Ms. Houston replied that the guidelines that would be
developed in conjunction with DPS. She thought that not all
cases would result in GPS monitoring.
2:42:05 PM
Representative Kawasaki believed that the policy shift was
significant. He wanted to know how many people could be
released and whether public safety was being considered at
the forefront. He hoped that releasing offenders under GPS
monitoring was not being considered as a cost saving
measure.
2:42:52 PM
Representative Gara returned to page 19 and the issue of
athletic coaches. He believed that witness of sexual abuse
should report abuse. He relayed that many athletic coaches
were paid very little and were without training regarding
child abuse or neglect. He worried that if an athletic
coach did not recognize the abuse was happening they could
be subject to incarceration.
Ms. Carpeneti stated that if a person did not notice child
abuse or neglect then they were under no obligation to
report. She stressed that if the coach was aware of
reasonable evidence that a child was being abused, then
they were required to report to the authorities. She
explained that there was a criminal penalty for a person
who was aware of reasonable evidence that a child was being
subject to abuse who failed to report. She said that there
was only one case in the history of the statute that had
been handed to the court, and the prosecution was declined.
She stressed that the purpose of the statute was to require
people who were faced with the information to report it to
people who could help the child.
2:45:56 PM
Representative Gara argued that the statute was poorly
written, lumping volunteer coaches in with trained coaches.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the bill originally required
volunteer coaches to be subject to the mandatory reporting
requirements, which was removed, and the current bill would
not require a volunteer coach to report.
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered where the idea of volunteer
coaches being required to report had originated.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that the issue had been raised by
the occurrences at Penn State where athletic coaches had
not reported many instances of sexual abuse that they had
been witness to, which had allowed for new victims year
after year.
Representative Gara rebutted that the Penn State issue
involved rape and that what was being discussed in the bill
was not rape. He stressed that he was not interested in
passing a bill that was going to generate a headline for
something that did not exist. He said if the bill was
related to athletic coaches that had observed a rape, he
would be on board. He believed that coaches should be
required to report high level sexual crimes, but should not
be accountable for leaving lesser crimes unnoticed.
Ms. Carpeneti shared that anyone who witnessed certain
crimes against children was required to report under Title
11. She explained that the rationale behind the language in
the bill was that athletic coaches who were paid spent a
lot of time with children, and had the opportunity to
observe any potential harm to a child. She stated that it
came down to a policy decision; whether the legislature
believed it was important enough that coaches be required
to report what was reasonably believed to be child abuse or
neglect.
Representative Gara understood that the provision was
intended for lesser level harm and that the issues
surrounding the Penn State case were already covered under
state law.
2:50:40 PM
Ms. Carpeneti thought that it would depend on the
circumstances and what were observed. She said that the
mandatory reporting provision was meant to encourage people
who were in a position to observe harm to children to
report it to authorities. She explained that it was a
violation not to report a crime against a child, but that
that was for a particular incident. She stressed that this
provision was meant to encourage people who had a lot of
contact with a child to report to someone who could help
the child if the child was being abused or neglected.
Ms. Carpeneti stated that the episode at Penn State had
generated a lot of conversation throughout the department.
She noted that if one were to look at the other people who
were required to report, it made sense that an athletic
coach that spent a lot of time with would be required to
report.
2:52:32 PM
Representative Costello stated that many different coaches
worked with young people, and many times the coaches were
parents. She expressed a concern for unintended
consequences that could occur in relation to divorcing
parents where one was a coach.
Ms. Carpeneti understood that most parent coaches were not
paid.
Representative Costello though that the provision could
discourage people from becoming paid athletic coaches.
Co-Chair Stoltze added that it was not uncommon for
children of volunteer coaches to receive free scholarships,
which could be viewed as a payment.
2:55:11 PM
Representative Munoz agreed with the pervious comments. She
stated that the inclusion in the current statute of school
teachers and school administrative staff members of public
and private schools would apply to paid school coaches. She
thought that the issue might be covered in current statute.
She lamented that the language was not clear as to what
constituted "payment." She added that the provision could
be applied to many sports teams. She echoed the concern
that the provision could scare off potential future
coaches.
Ms. Carpeneti agreed that the language was broadly written
and could be revisited.
Co-Chair Stoltze understood that the Department of Public
Safety was the lead agency on the bill.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that DOL and DPS were jointly
responsible.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that the bill was the governor's
priority.
2:57:53 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman wondered why a reasonable person would
not report a sexual assault. He thought that singling out
athletic coaches was troublesome.
Representative Wilson thought that if there was already a
responsibility to report that existed in statute, what
additional protection would result in specifying athletic
coaches in the bill.
Ms. Carpeneti thought that the provision in Title 11, that
made it a violation not to report a witnessed crime,
differed from the provision because it pertained to a crime
happening and then being reported in real time, rather than
after the fact. She explained that the duty to report in
Title 47, was the duty to report abuse that one had reason
to believe was happening outside of their presence.
3:00:16 PM
Representative Wilson maintained her objection that
athletic coaches should not be held to a higher reporting
standard than Girl Scout leaders, for example.
Co-Chair Stoltze thought that the legislation could create
a body of criminal law that could be exploited.
Ms. Carpeneti stated Title, 47, chapter 17, contained an
immunity section for people who reported.
3:01:48 PM
Representative Gara pointed out Page 19, line 8, to the
committee. He thought that the language could be changed
for clarity to read:
"school teachers and school administrative staff
members; including athletic coaches of public and
private schools."
Representative Kawasaki asked about Section 022, of title
47, which dealt with who paid for the training to recognize
abuse. He believed that active training to be able to
identify abuse or neglect was a good idea. He thought that
the section dealing with payment of coaches could include
payment for training by the state.
Ms. Carpeneti replied that there was training curricula
available online that was similar to what was available in
schools.
3:04:27 PM
Ms. Meade noted that currently, in some cases, GPS
monitoring was used already for people out on bail. The
court did not order people to use ankle monitors, but
defense council could request monitoring as an alternative
for those who were unable to meet requirements set by the
court.
SB 22 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:06 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 22 Response to Questions DVSA_Dashboard_2013.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 22 |
| SB 22 Amendments 1&2.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 22 |
| SB 22 CDVSA letter H FIN 4.3.13.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 22 |
| SB 22 Response to Rep. Neuman.PDF |
HFIN 4/3/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 22 |
| SB 22 Response HFCGoodTime.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 22 |