Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/11/2019 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
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 | |
| SB4 | |
| SB12 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 12
"An Act relating to assault in the first degree;
relating to sex offenses; and relating to credit
toward a sentence of imprisonment for time spent in a
treatment program or under electronic monitoring."
9:03:50 AM
Senator Peter Micciche, Sponsor, informed that the bill was
a result of a specific heinous crime that occurred on
August 8, 2017, when the perpetrator (Justin Schneider)
offered a ride to a young Alaska Native woman. The
perpetrator had given the woman a ride, after which he
tackled her, choked her to unconsciousness, sexually
assaulted her and left her. After a year it had become
clear that the state code was missing several key
considerations on such crime. The perpetrator was convicted
of assault. The perpetrator had been sentenced to two
years; he then received one year of electronic monitoring
and suspended the second year. He asked the committee to
consider the fact that the perpetrator had assaulted a
young woman and then did not spend any time in prison.
Senator Micciche continued his discussion of the bill. He
stated that SB 12 resolved the legal issue he had
described. He cited Alaska's ranking as number one for
sexual assault. He reiterated that there were gaps in the
state's laws that had not come to light until the case in
question which had resulted in a plea deal. The bill would
give prosecutors additional tools. The bill would: redefine
what a sex crime was, added unwanted contact with semen to
a list of crimes, expanded offenses required registering as
a sex offender, increased penalties for strangulation in
commission of a sex crime, and no longer allow credit for
electronic monitoring for crimes against a person. Finally,
the bill required formal consultation with the victim on
the plea agreement. The sponsor felt that had consultation
been required by law, the Schneider case would not have
resulted in a plea deal under which there was no jail time.
9:08:39 AM
EDRA MORLEDGE, STAFF, SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, addressed the
sectional analysis for SB 12 (copy on file):
Section 1: Amends AS 11.41.200(a), assault in the
first degree, to add new subsection 5, which adds a
person "knowingly causes another to become unconscious
by means of a dangerous instrument" and defines
"dangerous instrument" in accordance with the
definition in AS 11.81.900. (Page 1, line 6 Page 2,
line 5)
Section 2: Adds "knowingly causing a victim to come
into contact with semen" to the definition of "sexual
contact" in AS 11.91.900(b)(60). (Page 2, lines 6
25)
Section 3: Repeals and reenacts AS 12.55.027(d) to
specify that a court may not grant credit against a
sentence for time in a private residence or on
electronic monitoring. (Page 2, Lines 26 28)
Section 4: Amends AS 12.55.027(e) to remove
"electronic monitoring" as an option for claiming
credit toward a sentence of imprisonment. (Page 2,
line 29 Page 3, line 7)
Section 5: Amends AS 12.55.125(c) to add an enhanced
sentencing structure for assault in the first degree
when a dangerous instrument is used in the assault,
which is a class A felony. (Page 3, line 8 Page 4,
line 4)
Section 6: Amends AS 12.55.125(d) to add an enhanced
sentencing structure for assault in the second degree
when a dangerous instrument is used in the assault,
which is a class B felony. (Page 4, lines 5 29)
Section 7: Amends AS 12.55.125(e) to add an enhanced
sentencing structure for assault in the third degree
when a dangerous instrument is used in the assault,
which is a class C felony. (Page 4, line 30 Page 5,
line
23)
Section 8: Amends AS 12.55.125(i) to add increased
presumptive ranges to second- and third-degree sexual
crimes when in the commission of the crime, a
defendant possessed a firearm, used a dangerous
instrument or caused serious physical injury. (Page 5,
line 24 Page 8, line 22)
Section 9: Adds AS 12.61.015(d), a new subsection that
requires the prosecuting attorney to make a reasonable
effort to confer with the victim of a sexual felony
(or their legal guardian) to ascertain if they agree
with the proposed plea agreement. (Page 8, lines 23
30)
Section 10: Repeals AS 12.55.027(g), which allowed for
sentencing for time spent on electronic monitoring.
(Page 8, line 31)
Section 11: Applicability. (Page 9, line 1 10)
Section 15: Effective date clause. (Page 9, line 11)
9:12:24 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof informed that there were three
individuals signed up for invited testimony.
9:13:05 AM
CARMEN LOWRY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA NETWORK ON
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, thanked the committee
for the opportunity to discuss the bill and engage about
the serious nature of sexual crimes. She stated that the
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
(ANDVSA) was a membership organization comprised of 24
community-based agencies that provided direct life-saving
services to victims and survivors. She stated that the
network and its members fully supported the bill. She
thanked the sponsor for addressing clear deficiencies in
the state's laws. She referenced Section 1 of the bill,
which expanded the definition of strangulation. It allowed
for understanding the perpetrators used many ways to deny a
victim oxygen.
Ms. Lowry discussed Section 9, which had to do with a
reasonable effort to contact a victim if there was a plea
deal. She reiterated the importance of prosecuting
attorneys working closely with victim's services agencies.
She relayed that more often than not, agencies or shelter
services had contact with victims. She offered the
expertise of the network to work with the Department of Law
(LAW) to come up with a checklist to ensure a reasonable
attempt was made to contact a victim and give them a voice.
She noted that a prosecuting attorney would not be bound in
any way by the provision, but it was very important for to
fully understand why a victim may have a certain
perspective.
9:16:21 AM
Senator Olson asked about Section 9 of the bill, which he
thought did not have the "teeth" he would have expected. He
referenced the phrase "reasonable effort" and noted that
nothing in the section required the prosecuting attorney to
be bound by the victim's response regarding the plea deal.
He thought it seemed like a soft-handed, feel-good piece of
legislation.
Ms. Lowry explained that ANDVSA thought the reasons listed
by Senator Olson were the reasons a checklist would be
helpful. She thought there needed to be consultation. She
explained that victims did not always want to go on the
record, because it put pressure on her to determine what
happened to someone who likely was known. She thought there
had to be a process for the law to uphold the intent and
make sure people were informed.
Senator Olson considered the crime that was the impetus for
the bill. He thought one problem was the prosecuting
attorney that was trying to go for a conviction and almost
acted recklessly and arrogantly, and the judge had his
hands tied. He thought the prosecuting attorney had erred
on the side of leniency.
9:19:34 AM
Senator Micciche reminded that the vast majority of what
occurred in the crime being discussed had not been
criminal, save for the second-degree assault. He stated he
was not pushing victims to participate to a level that they
were not comfortable. He thought the bill would result in
victim's participation at a high enough level to prosecute
individuals to the highest extent of the law.
Senator Wilson wondered if LAW would be participating in
invited testimony.
Co-Chair von Imhof stated that LAW was not part of invited
testimony, but there was a representative of the department
in the room that could answer questions.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if Senator Micciche wanted to make
a brief statement before the third testifier began his
remarks.
Senator Micciche stated that the third testifier was Judge
Michael Corey, who had presided over the Justin Schneider
case. He had not supported the judge's retention. The judge
had called Senator Micciche and had helped clarify why he
thought the greater participation on behalf of the victim
was important.
9:23:30 AM
JUDGE MICHAEL COREY (via teleconference), informed that he
had presided over the Justin Schneider case. He wanted to
be clear that he was speaking on his own behalf as a
private citizen, as he was no longer a judge. He relayed
that he had followed the law as was required by his oath,
and he had "been crucified for it." He supported the bill,
and thought it fixed problems that existed in law. He
opined that if SB 12 had been in effect that the time
Justin Schneider engaged in his actions, there would not be
the problems that had followed. He wished to be involved in
the bill to help his former colleagues on the bench so that
no one would have to go through what he and his family had
experienced.
Mr. Corey continued his testimony. He thought it was clear
that there were segments of the population that exploited
social media without regard for accuracy or hurt to others
while seeking political relevance. He emphasized that he
had not been the problem (in the outcome of the case), but
rather the law had been the problem. He reiterated that he
thought SB 12 fixed the problem with the law. He supported
all of the measures included in the bill, including the
addition to the definition of "sexual contact." He asserted
that if the different definition had been included in the
law prior to Justin Schneider's actions, there was no way a
plea arrangement would have been sought by the prosecutor.
He mentioned public outrage at the credit given for time
served on electronic monitoring.
Mr. Corey continued his remarks. He did not dispute the
increase in sentencing ranges as proposed in the bill. He
explained that the expanded definition of sexual contact,
if applied to the Schneider case, would have resulted in a
greater sentence and registration on the sex offender
database.
9:27:17 AM
Mr. Corey addressed the concerns of victims. He thought the
Alaska constitution mentioned that victims needed to be
treated with respect. He thought respect should also be
shown to victims that did not want to be present in court
proceedings. He did not think that a few individuals should
dictate how victims had to conduct themselves. He thought
it was possible that a victim could not be found because
they did not want to come forward. He thought it was
troubling that if a defendant could know or act on the
status of a victim's participation.
9:29:22 AM
Mr. Corey addressed Section 9 of the bill and liked the
fact that a prosecutor had an affirmative obligation,
without which the obligation was on victims to come
forward. He thought discreet sensitive contact originating
with the prosecuting attorney's office might bring more
involvement. He thought the court had to perpetuate
objectivity.
Mr. Corey expressed gratitude for Senator Micciche and his
staff taking his call and discussing concerns for victims.
He thought that there were unintended consequences when law
was changed. He thought one possibility was to give a
victim veto power over a plea arrangement. He thought that
at a minimum, if the bill was enacted as-is, it seemed that
it would be helpful if the legislature would send judicial
officers the freedom to reject plea agreements if victims
did not agree.
Mr. Corey anticipated that there would be additional
discussion about a victim's displeasure about a plea
agreement and he thought judges would question whether
there was authority to reject the agreement solely on the
grounds of the victim's disapproval. He thought there were
times a plea agreement should be accepted even over a
victim's disapproval, but he did not want to see his former
colleagues subjected to the malicious attacks if it was
perceived the courts ignored the wishes of the victims.
9:33:24 AM
Co-Chair Stedman noted that the charge of kidnapping had
not been used in the Schneider case. He wondered if
kidnapping statutes should be updated to help in future
cases.
Mr. Corey thought it did not hurt to take another look at
the relevant statutes. He knew the court could not reject a
plea agreement predicated on the manner in which the
prosecution chooses to charge a defendant. If the charge
was dropped, there was a separation of powers issue between
the executive and judiciary branches. He emphasized that
much of the issue had to do with what the prosecutor
thought she or he could prove. He clarified that the judge
was precluded from being involved in the negotiation
process. Since the plea agreement was by definition a
liquidation of risk on both sides, the agreement would be
too lenient or too harsh as compared to a different
eventuality. There were other parameters for other plea
bargains. The question of community condemnation weighed on
judges. He discussed the level of sanctions imposed on
perpetrators under plea agreements and thought the public
would be horrified.
9:36:16 AM
Senator Wielechowski considered the definition of
kidnapping under AS 11.41.300. He cited that news reports
had described the actions taken by the perpetrator in the
Schneider case, and he thought the crime clearly met the
definition of kidnapping and attempted murder. He asked
what the prosecution was prepared to go forward on if the
judge had rejected the plea agreement.
Mr. Corey stated that the charges had included kidnapping
and assault in the second degree, but not attempted murder.
He informed that a judge did not have the power to direct
the prosecution in terms of what charges could be brought,
nor could a judge stop the prosecution from dropping
charges. He explained that judges were obligated to follow
the law when personal preferences diverged from the letter
of the law.
Mr. Corey thought the case had a horrible result. He
discussed the role of the judge in presiding over cases. He
thought reexamination of the particulars of the case would
require a sit-down with the district attorney's office,
which could answer the question of the charges more fully.
9:40:48 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof reminded that there were others to give
invited testimony. She asked for speakers to stay focused
on the questions and stay concise. She appreciated Mr.
Corey's testimony.
Senator Wielechowski asked if a kidnapping charge was an
unclassified felony.
Mr. Corey answered in the affirmative.
Senator Wielechowski asked if the charge meant the
potential for life in prison.
Mr. Corey stated that the sentence could be up to 99 years.
He thought there might be common-law restrictions and
ranges.
Senator Wielechowski asked if there was case law that said
the definition of kidnapping could include moving to
another location by deception.
Mr. Corey believed Senator Wielechowski's description was
correct.
Senator Wielechowski asked if the judge had rejected the
plea, the case would have gone to trial on a kidnapping
charge.
Mr. Corey stated that judges were not authorized to reject
pleas because the state dropped a charge. He stated that if
there had been a legitimate reason for him to reject the
plea (which there had not been) it would have gone to trial
and the state may or may not have pursued the charge of
kidnapping depending on the evidence.
Senator Micciche wanted to ensure that he had looked in to
the case and found a conviction of kidnapping would have
been very challenging. The bill tried to put tools in place
that would have resulted in a conviction. He wanted to
clarify that it seemed that a kidnapping conviction,
particularly without a willing witness, would have been
difficult to prove.
9:44:50 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof OPENED public testimony.
ELIZABETH WILLIAMS, NO MORE FREE PASSES, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), testified in support of the bill. She
commented that the bill was different than any other crime
bill because crimes that involved power and control were
different than other crimes and needed to be prosecuted
differently. She discussed recent criminal justice reform
efforts. She stated that the goal of No More Free Passes
was to educate policy-makers that crimes of domestic
violence and sexual assault needed to be treated
differently. She compared strangulation to water-boarding.
Ms. Williams asserted that crimes of sexual assault were
similar to torture and would stay with victims for life.
She discussed the rate of recidivism and cited that 45
percent of domestic violence perpetrators committed another
crime of domestic violence. She informed that most of the
time perpetrators of domestic violence and sexual assault
victimized the same people. She pointed out that release of
the perpetrators potentially revictimized people. She
supported a provision that was added to require prosecutors
to confer with victims.
9:48:50 AM
MARIE MCCONNELL, SELF, STERLING (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to the bill. She opposed the
provision of the bill related to not allowing credit for
time spent on ankle monitoring. She discussed the financial
costs and restrictions of ankle monitoring. She thought
ankle monitoring was a severe restriction of liberty and
was a severe punishment.
9:52:06 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof CLOSED public testimony.
Senator Wilson asked about Section 9 of the bill and wanted
a description of how the provision might work in a case
similar to the Schneider case being discussed.
KACI SCHROEDER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, informed that the language in
Section 9 outlined best practice for a prosecutor in
consulting with a victim. She noted that the practice was
not unlike what was already being done for most cases. She
conveyed that at the case initiation; the office would
attempt to contact victims by phone, email, or letter. In
the initial contact the prosecutors would explain the
victim's rights and inform of consultation in the case of a
plea agreement or what might happen if the case when to
trial. If a victim was inclined to be involved, automatic
systems would send notifications of court hearings and
potential offender release. If the victim did not agree,
the attorneys would make note and often let the court know.
At the point of a plea agreement, the office would contact
the victim and consider feedback. Victims could also show
up at change of plea hearings to express dissatisfaction
with the agreement.
Senator Wilson wondered how the victim's agreement would be
recorded into the record. He had worked with victims of
domestic violence and sexual assault. He was concerned that
the criminal process was but one piece of the puzzle,
followed by the civil process. He thought whether the
agreement was recorded could have a difference in the civil
case.
Ms. Schroeder stated that a victim's information/feedback
would be recorded in the electronic and hard file, and the
information would be accessible to any prosecutor in the
trial. The information was not available on a searchable
database.
9:56:06 AM
Senator Wilson did not want to see the civil process or
seeking of damages negatively affected by the record from
the criminal case.
Senator Micciche noted that the testifier had used the word
"often" (in reference to recording victim's feedback) and
noted that the bill required the recording of the
information. He was not sure he could make a connection
between plea agreements and change in civil status. He
noted that the bill formalized a process that usually
existed. He had felt that if the information had been
recorded in the Schneider case it could have resulted in a
different outcome.
Ms. Schroeder stated that Senator Micciche was correct.
While it was currently the policy of LAW to record the
information, the bill would make it law.
Senator Wielechowski referenced Section 9, which stated
that prosecuting attorneys should make a reasonable effort
to confer with victims. He wondered if there was liability
or repercussions if an attempt was not made to contact the
victim.
Ms. Schroeder was not certain but affirmed that employees
of LAW were required to follow the law.
Senator Wielechowski asked if the state had been prepared
to prosecute the Schneider case if the plea agreement was
rejected; and if so, on what grounds.
Ms. Schroeder stated she had not prosecuted the case and
had not done an audit of the case. She did not know what
the state had been ready to go forward with had the plea
agreement been rejected. She offered to get more
information.
Senator Wielechowski was interested in more information. He
did not understand why the charge of kidnapping was not
pursued, and thought the acts in question were clearly a
case of attempted murder. He thought the law already
covered the matter and wanted to know why the department
settled for a very lenient plea agreement.
10:00:48 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof interjected that it was not relevant to
the bill to discuss opinions on the plea agreement.
Senator Wielechowski opined that the case was relevant. He
asserted that the current law was not followed in the
Schneider case, and passing a new bill was not needed. He
wanted more information from the department.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked Ms. Schneider to follow up with
Senator Wielechowski to address why particular laws were
not followed at the time. She mentioned the issue of
kidnapping and asked for the subject to be addressed.
Senator Olson thought the bill might be inadequate to
address the concerns being discussed. He thought Section 9
of the bill was particularly troubling, in that that LAW
was unbound by the victim's response regarding the plea
agreement. He was also interested in the information
Senator Wielechowski had requested from Ms. Schroeder.
Co-Chair von Imhof acknowledged the ongoing discussion
regarding Section 9 of the bill and urged the bill sponsor
to work with LAW to look at the section.
Senator Micciche addressed a comment by Senator
Wielechowski and wanted understanding that whether or not a
conviction would have occurred (in the Schneider case) for
kidnapping or murder; the perpetrator still would not have
been charged with commission of a sex crime because
"unwanted contact with semen" had not been a prosecutable
offense. He emphasized that the bill was necessary to
adequately prosecute crimes such as the one that occurred
in the Schneider case.
Senator Shower asked about the blank spots on the bottom
right of that chart the sponsor provided (copy not on
file), and if it indicated there were no changes to the
provisions under SB 12.
Senator Micciche answered in the affirmative.
10:04:11 AM
Senator Wielechowski agreed that changes needed to happen
in the area of law pertaining to sex crimes. He addressed
Section 3 of the bill and thought there might be some merit
to keeping some of the credits for time spent on electric
monitoring. He asked if it was standard procedure in other
states to have credit for time spent on electronic
monitoring, and if Alaska had historically allowed the
credit.
Ms. Schroeder stated that the language in Section 3 had
been in law for many years prior to five years previously,
when the legislature had passed a law allowing for credit
for time spent on electronic monitoring. She noted that
some of the credit had been capped at 360 days via SB 91
[criminal justice reform legislation passed in 2016] for
certain violent offenses. The fact that people were getting
credit for electronic monitoring pre-trial was a fairly new
development in Alaska law. She was not aware of the law in
other states.
Senator Wilson thought the credit for electronic monitoring
was inequitable due to the financial requirements to
participate. He wanted to see it capped or left out of the
bill. He appreciated the sponsor's omission of the
provision in the bill.
Senator Micciche anticipated that the issue of electronic
monitoring would resurface in the other body. He wanted
people to consider that for pre-trial monitoring, the
benefit of the credit would be given to those convicted of
a crime while being withheld from those who were found
innocent. He pointed out that it was still possible to use
electronic monitoring post-conviction for the right
candidate. He thought the Schneider case had incentive to
delay and had resulted in a sentence of one year on
electronic monitoring. He noted that the proposed change to
law for electronic monitoring was only for crimes against a
person, and still allowed for the credit for minor crimes
not against a person.
Co-Chair von Imhof thought she heard that it was important
to determine what factors contributed towards the
unsatisfactory results in the Schneider case, and what
could be done to mitigate the factors. She thought the bill
was a step in the right direction. She suggested it was
important to research other possible steps.
10:08:21 AM
Senator Wilson referenced the question of innocent people
spending time on electronic monitoring. He asked if banking
of time served for similar crimes was still used.
Ms. Schroeder stated that banking of time was not used in
the way Senator Wilson described. She continued that people
could bank time if they were serving time on the same case.
If a person was serving time on electronic monitoring, and
then was acquitted, the person could not use the time
accrued on another case.
Senator Wilson asked about case globalization settlement.
Ms. Schneider thought as part of global resolutions, the
court would address the matter and use time spent on
electronic monitoring.
Senator Wilson asked how many cases similar to the
Schneider case resulted in global resolutions.
Ms. Schroeder informed that global resolutions were
typically found when a person had many cases and LAW wanted
to dispose of the cases in one agreement. She could not say
that the resolutions were or were not typical to one kind
of case.
Senator Wilson referenced his experience testifying against
batterers and recalled many other charges being used to
dismiss cases.
Ms. Schroeder was not sure she understood Senator Wilson's
comment.
Senator Wilson asked if there was anything in SB 12 to
prohibit a globalization plea agreement that would offset
what was trying to be remedied in the bill.
Ms. Schroeder stated that there was nothing in the bill
that would impact how the state could negotiate cases. She
continued that the bill gave prosecutors more tools and
more flexibility on how cases may resolve. She used the
example of the addition of enhanced penalties for using a
dangerous instrument in furtherance of a sexual assault.
10:11:57 AM
Senator Wilson pondered if Justin Schneider had been
serving time on ankle monitoring and if his case had been
globalized. He thought it was possible that he would have
served no time after credit for time spent on another
charge.
Ms. Schroeder wanted to check on the transferring of time
as described by Senator Wilson, which she stated did not
happen often. She offered to provide more information.
Senator Bishop was glad to hear Ms. Schroeder state that
prosecutors would have more tools.
Co-Chair von Imhof stated the committee would hold the bill
for further review and members would have time to pursue
more information.
10:13:54 AM
Senator Micciche commented that there was a secondary value
of the bill. He cited that 63 percent of sexual assault
crimes in the state were not reported, which he thought was
in part because of outcomes such as in the Schneider case.
He hoped the changes proposed in the bill would result in
more reporting and encourage victims to engage more in the
trial process.
Senator Micciche reviewed FN 1, OMB component 43. The
fiscal note was indeterminate. He read from the analysis on
page 2:
This bill will increase caseloads. The state will
likely bring more cases, and these cases will require
significant resources because of the severity of the
charges and consequences of conviction.
Senator Micciche reviewed FN 2, OMB component 1631. The
fiscal note was indeterminate for the same reason as FN 1.
Senator Micciche reviewed FN 3, OMB component 2134. The
fiscal note showed zero fiscal impact.
Senator Micciche reviewed FN 4, OMB component 2202. The
fiscal note showed zero fiscal impact.
Senator Micciche reviewed FN 5, OMB component 768. The
fiscal note showed zero fiscal impact.
Senator Micciche discussed a sixth fiscal note.
Co-Chair von Imhof did not have the fiscal note.
10:17:38 AM
AT EASE
10:18:30 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair von Imhof noted that the most recent fiscal note
discussed by Senator Micciche had not been provided to
members. She set the bill aside for further consideration.
SB 12 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair von Imhof discussed the schedule for the following
day.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSSSSB 12 Sponsor Statement v. O.pdf |
SFIN 3/11/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 12 |
| CSSSSB 12 Sectional Analysis Version O.pdf |
SFIN 3/11/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 12 |
| CSSSSB12 Explanation of Changes from Version U to O.pdf |
SFIN 3/11/2019 9:00:00 AM SJUD 3/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 - DoLaw PR 9.21.18.pdf |
SFIN 3/11/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 - KTUU Article 9.26.18.pdf |
SFIN 3/11/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 - WP Article 9.22.18.pdf |
SFIN 3/11/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 ANDVSA Invited Testimony.pdf |
SFIN 3/11/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Letter of Support APOA 2.6.19.pdf |
SFIN 3/11/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Star Article 8.14.17.pdf |
SFIN 3/11/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 12 |