Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
02/17/2022 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB148 | |
| SB161 | |
| SB66 | |
| SB81 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 161 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 157 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 115 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SJR 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 148 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 81-VILLAGE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER GRANTS
[Contains discussion of HB 123.]
4:09:17 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 81 "An Act requiring background
investigations of village public safety officer applicants by
the Department of Public Safety; relating to the village public
safety officer program; and providing for an effective date."
4:09:38 PM
SENATOR DONALD OLSON, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SB 81, introduced the legislation paraphrasing the
sponsor statement which read:
[Original punctuation provided.]
This bill has been introduced to implement the nine
recommendations of the joint legislative VPSO Working
Group's report which was adopted on January 24, 2020.
Created in the late 1970's, the Village Public Safety
Officer (VPSO) program's stated purpose is to assist
in the protection of "life and property" and
coordinate probation and parole in rural communities.
Currently, ten entities operate VPSO grants. Eight of
the ten grantees are regionally based nonprofit
corporations whose missions are to cultivate self-
determination among local tribal citizens. One is a
federally recognized tribe, and the Northwest Arctic
Borough, a home rule regional government seated in
Kotzebue, is the only grantee organization that is a
municipal government.
While the VPSO program has provided valuable service
to participating areas, the past decade has seen
shrinking numbers of VPSOs, significant difficulty in
recruitment and retention of officers, and community
needs that surpass the current duties of VPSOs. There
is undoubtedly a need to address the crisis in public
safety infrastructure and service in rural Alaska.
On May 9th, 2019, Senate President Cathy Giessel and
House Speaker Bryce Edgmon announced the creation of a
Joint House/Senate Working Group to provide
substantive policy recommendations related to the VPSO
program.
Appointed to the working group were: Senator Donny
Olson, Co-Chair; Representative Chuck Kopp, Co-Chair;
Senator Click Bishop; Senator Mike Shower;
Representative Bryce Edgmon; and Representative George
Rauscher.
The working group was assigned to coordinate with
stakeholders to examine the underlying causes of the
recruitment and retention obstacle and provide
proposals to turn around the epidemic rate of
personnel turnover within the VPSO program.
The working group held meetings, attended community
meetings, participated in listening sessions, and
worked with stakeholders to arrive at the proposals
outlined in this report. The proposals primarily
address the core problem of increasing the number of
VPSO's available to communities.
The bill incorporates the Working Group's nine short
term recommendations:
[The sponsor's staff read the nine recommendations.]
SENATOR OLSON clarified that CSSB 81(CRA), version I,
incorporates eight of the nine short term recommendations from
the VPSO working group. Recommendation six was deemed
unnecessary and was removed thanks to exemplary cooperation
between the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and the VPSO
coordinators.
4:12:25 PM
BRIX HAHN, Staff, Senator Donald Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, stated that SB 81 implements eight
of the nine recommendations from the joint legislative Village
Public Safety Officer (VPSO) Working Group report that was
adopted January 24, 2020. She read the recommendations.
Recommendation 1. Update the VPSO statutes to provide
a clear law enforcement and public safety vision and
mission for the program and provide VPSO personnel
clear law enforcement duties and powers.
Recommendation 2. Create more financial flexibility
for the VPSO grantee organizations in the updated VPSO
statutes.
Recommendation 3. Restore VPSO funding levels to FY18
levels.
Recommendation 4. Fund unfunded mandates.
Recommendation 5. Related to Recommendation 4, in an
updated VPSO statute, mandate that grant awards pay
grantee organization their full indirect costs.
Recommendation 6. Move financial grant management to
the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development.
MS. HAWN highlighted that the previous committee of referral
removed Recommendation 6 and credited the good working
relationship between the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and
the VPSO coordinators.
Recommendation 7. Maintain operational advisory,
training, and experience requirement oversight at the
Department of Public Safety.
Recommendation 8. In statute create a Tribal/Grantee
organization consultation process before the
Department can change training and experience
requirements.
Recommendation 9. Revised versions (consistent with
the recommendations of the Working Group report) of
current VPSO regulations need to be placed in statute
in order to operationalize the VPSO program and to
facilitate the grant management moving to the
Department of Commerce.
4:14:15 PM
MS. HAHN reviewed the changes between version A and version I of
SB 81. She explained that version I maintains VPSO grant
management within the Department of Public Safety. All
references to the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development (DCCED) were removed. The change that requires the
bill to be renumbered starts with Section 5. In version A that
proposed amending DCCED's enabling statute to add the VPSO
program as a grant it had the authority to administer. That
section was removed and the remaining sections of the bill were
renumbered.
4:14:51 PM
MS. HAHN paraphrased the sectional analysis for SB 81.
Section 1 (pages 1-3)
Amends AS 12.62.400 regarding criminal history
background checks and adds VPSO program personnel as a
program the Department of Public Safety is authorized
to secure background checks via the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. The substantive change occurs on page
3, line 21.
Section 2 (page 3)
Related to Section 1, Amends AS 18.65.080, one of the
Department of Public Safety's enabling statutes. The
amendment requires that the Department secure the
background checks for VPSO program personnel.
Sections 1 and 2 implement Recommendation 2 regarding
creating more financial flexibility for the program.
At one point the Department of Public Safety (DPS) was
conducting background checks for the VPSO program then
unilaterally stopped with no notice the grantee
organizations. Sections 1 and 2 together make it clear
that background checks are a DPS function for the VPSO
program.
Section 3 (pages 4-7)
In current statute the VPSO program has only one
statute, AS 18.65.670. Section 3 proposes to repeal
and reenact the statute and add multiple new
subsections.
Subsection (a) has been rewritten to conform
to the current Legislative Drafting Manual
and because a new statute is proposed in
Bill Section 4, AS 18.65.686, that updates
VPSO duties and powers.
Subsection (b) is identical to existing (b),
except the last sentence of existing (b) is
not included as it was deemed unnecessary.
Subsection (c) is new and is the statutory
codification of current DPS regulation 13
AAC 96.020. This implements Recommendation
9.
Subsection (d) is new and is the statutory
codification of current DPS regulation 13
AAC 96.030 with changes that remove the
prohibition of existing 13 AAC 96.030(2)
that prevents the payment of bonuses from
other non-VPSO grant revenue sources. Also
removed is the requirement that grantees
indemnify the state. These changes implement
Recommendations, 2, 4, and 9.
Subsection (e) is new and is the partial
statutory codification of current DPS
regulations 13 AAC 96.040, specifically,
(a)(2). This subsection sets the overall
policy that one VPSO is generally assigned
to one village unless the grantee
organization requests additional VPSO
personnel per village. The changes reflect a
more neutral and less harsh tone than the
language from the regulation.
Subsection (f) is new and allows for
traveling or "roving" VPSO personnel who are
permitted to itinerate between villages
within a grantee's region as public safety
needs arise. These changes implement
Recommendations 1, 2, and 9.
Subsection (g) is new and is the partial
statutory codification of current DPS
regulations 13 AAC 96.040. New (g) contains
grant award record keeping requirements and
other grant management requirements. These
changes implement Recommendations 1, 2, and
9.
Subsection (h) contains new regulation
adopting authority for the DPS commissioner,
subject to the new consultation requirements
of new (l) of this bill section. These
changes implement Recommendations 1, 2, and
8.
Subsection (i) allows for funding grantee
organizations' indirect rates up to a
statewide average of 35%. This language has
been used as intent language in multiple
prior operating budget bills. These changes
partially implement Recommendations 2, 4-5.
Subsection (j) is new and provides explicit
instruction to the commissioner on grant
fund disbursement. Specifically, that grant
funds can be used for items reasonably
related to public safety and VPSO duties as
codified in this bill. Further, grant fund
disbursement is to be timely and funding
request are not to be unreasonably withheld.
These changes partially implement
Recommendation 2.
Subsections (k) and (l) are related to new
(i) and provides for a consultation and
negotiated rule-making process for when any
of the state agencies involved with the VPSO
program exercise their regulation adopting
authority. These changes implement
Recommendation 8.
MS. HAWN noted that the forgoing formalizes the existing
cooperative process between VPSO coordinators and DPS to jointly
make decisions about how the program works.
Section 4 (pages 8-14)
Creates new statutes:
AS 18.65.672 is the statutory codification
of current DPS regulation 13 AAC 96.080
dealing with VPSO qualification
requirements. These changes implement
Recommendation 9.
AS 18.65.674 is the statutory codification
of current DPS regulation 13 AAC 96.090
dealing with VPSO background checks. These
changes implement Recommendation 9.
AS 18.65.676 is the statutory codification
of current DPS regulation 13 AAC 96.100
dealing with VPSO training requirements.
These changes implement Recommendations 1
and 9.
AS 18.65.678 is the statutory codification
of current DPS regulations 13 AAC
96.040(b)(8) and 13 AAC 96.100 dealing with
VPSO firearm training requirements. These
changes implement Recommendations 9.
AS 18 65.682 is the statutory codification
of current DPS regulation 13 AAC 96.110
dealing with VPSO certification. These
changes implement Recommendations 9.
AS 18.65.684 is the statutory codification
of current DPS regulation 13 AAC 96.120
dealing with the denial, revocation, or
lapse of a VPSO certificate. These changes
implement Recommendations 9.
AS 18.65.686 contains the duties and
functions that VPSO personnel are currently
performing but are not codified in the
existing statute. This implements
Recommendation 1.
AS 18.65.688 is a definitional section to
deal with various terms used throughout the
new statutory sections.
Section 5 (page 14)
Creates in the uncodified law a standard grandfather
provision for existing VPSO personnel who may have
been certified under different training requirements
than what is provided for in this bill.
Section 6 (page 14)
Creates in the uncodified law a requirement that DPS
continue its current level of interaction between
itself and the VPSO personnel. That requirement is
codified in current VPSO statute AS 18.65.670(c) with
the language relating to DPS regulation authority
extending to "the interaction between the Department
of Public Safety and village public safety officers."
This requirement is maintained by bill section 3(i)
which uses the exact wording regarding DPS regulation
authority.
Section 7 (page 14)
Is an effective date provision and provides that the
subsections (b) (g) of repealed and reenacted AS
18.65.670 become effective on July 1, 2020. These
subsections are proposed codifications and
modifications of current department regulations. This
will allow the department time to take action to make
the department regulations consistent with the new
provisions of statute enacted by this bill.
Section 8 (page 14).
Provides that all other sections of the bill have an
immediate effective date.
4:22:14 PM
SENATOR OLSON stated that while the bill appears to be
complicated, it only contains the recommendations the working
group decided on.
CHAIR SHOWER expressed appreciation for the bill.
SENATOR REINBOLD recalled a VPSO bill when she was in the House
that was purported to decrease law enforcement costs. She asked
for the current wages for Village Public Safety Officers and
Alaska State Troopers.
SENATOR OLSON replied the pay scale for VPSOs is roughly $58,000
per year whereas Alaska State Troopers earn in excess of six
figures.
CHAIR SHOWER noted that the expert testimony could also speak to
salaries.
SENATOR REINBOLD said this is important because trooper costs
are more than just the salary. She asked for an explanation of
the 30 percent for administrative cost and asked what happens to
the money when positions are unfilled.
SENATOR OLSON deferred the question about administrative costs
to the invited testimony.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked what happens to the money when positions
are not filled.
SENATOR OLSON replied the funds are held within DPS.
4:26:33 PM
JAMES COCKRELL, Commissioner, Department of Public Safety (DPS),
Anchorage, Alaska, stated that DPS supports the VPSO program as
a key component of its overall mission. The department has
worked with both Senator Olson, Representative Patkotak and
other legislators to develop a bill that will allow the VPSO
program to grow and provide flexibility for communities,
villages, and tribes to decide on the direction of the program.
4:27:35 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked if he had an opinion on the bill and if he
foresaw any problems.
COMMISSIONER COCKRELL stated that DPS supports SB 81 and any
amendments the sponsor may put forward. The department is
comfortable with the direction the bill is going.
SENATOR OLSON said he would also like to hear from Kelly Howell.
SENATOR REINBOLD expressed concern about political activism and
asked if tribal courts have to follow state statutes.
COMMISSIONER COCKRELL explained that most cases that a VPSO or a
trooper handles will go through state court. However, the
department does have civil diversion agreements with some tribes
to take minor cases to tribal court. He said he supports
allowing tribal courts to address lesser crimes and keep a
member of a tribe from potentially getting a criminal record for
a minor, non-person offense. Aside from the Indian Reserve on
Metlakatla, felony cases go through state court.
CHAIR SHOWER asked who has jurisdiction over a non-tribal member
who is charged with committing a crime on tribal land and
whether that person would have the right to appeal their
sentence to a state court. He also asked if the reverse would
apply for a tribal member.
4:32:39 PM
COMMISSIONER COCKRELL replied DPS recognizes tribal criminal
complaints and those can be taken to state court, although that
does not apply to banishment because state courts do not
recognize that penalty. He added that there is not a one-size-
fits-all way of dealing with tribes in Alaska; troopers are more
actively involved with tribes in some areas and certain tribal
courts are more vibrant than others. He also briefly mentioned
the concept of Circles that is something less than a tribal
court that only hears minor adult cases and imposes penalties.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Joel Hard if he had anything to add.
4:34:54 PM
JOEL HARD, Director of Operations, Village Public Safety Officer
program, Department of Public Safety, Anchorage, Alaska,
explained that jurisdiction is primarily based on membership,
not geography. However, the state always has concurrent
jurisdiction so there is always a decision about the direction
the case goes.
CHAIR SHOWER asked who makes the decision and whether the
individual is able to appeal.
MR. HARD replied the actions in tribal court are directed toward
tribal members but he didn't know how it works for non-tribal
members.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she wants all domestic violence and sexual
assault cases to go to state court to ensure they are not
silenced or ignored. She mentioned HB 123 and offered her belief
that recognition is one thing, but sovereignty for the 229
tribes in Alaska is a different matter.
COMMISSIONER COCKRELL said all domestic violence and sexual
assault cases go to state court. The state isn't relinquishing
its authority to allow minor crimes to be adjudicated in tribal
court where the penalties might be gathering firewood or
catching fish for an elder, but recognizes that tribes have
their own system of justice for minor crimes committed within
the tribe's jurisdiction and their culture plays a part.
CHAIR SHOWER said he believes the state needs to figure out a
consistent standard of justice because there could be
complications if each of the 229 tribes has a different
standard.
COMMISSIONER COCKRELL said the heart of the matter is that the
state has never provided an adequate law enforcement presence in
the villages, and in that absence the federal government and the
tribes have filled the void. He noted there were bills in
Congress now to provide flexibility and autonomy for the
[federally recognized] tribes in Alaska. We have only ourselves
to blame, he said, because the state hasn't provided the support
the tribes have needed since statehood.
CHAIR SHOWER said he appreciates the honesty and self-
assessment.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she has no problem with someone being a
member of a tribe. However, if tribes want sovereignty over all
affairs, she wonders whether tribal members would have to follow
state and federal laws.
4:42:42 PM
COMMISSIONER COCKRELL responded that everyone is bound by state
law and the State of Alaska is responsible for providing law
enforcement in all jurisdictions. He noted that the Metlakatla
Indian Reserve is an exception.
CHAIR SHOWER noted that the sponsor had something to add.
4:43:34 PM
SENATOR OLSON explained that the word sovereignty means
different things depending on the context. The sovereignty of
tribes comes from the federal treaty that talks about
government-to-government interactions. That does not mean that a
tribe could challenge either the state or U.S. governments.
Tribes are subservient to both authorities with the hierarchy
being the federal government first, state government second, and
the tribal authorities below that.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked how a sovereign nation differs from a
recognized nation and whether a sovereign nation supersedes
anything.
SENATOR OLSON said he was not an expert and would rather not get
caught up in semantics and the issue of sovereignty. It's an
important issue, but SB 81 is about getting public safety in all
communities. He highlighted that there are no VPSOs in the
Kotzebue region and Bethel has just three of about 43 positions
filled.
CHAIR SHOWER called his former staff, Terrence Shanigan, to
respond to the questions about the PL 280 authority
[jurisdiction in criminal cases], the different meanings of
sovereignty, and the 30 percent administrative cost.
4:47:12 PM
TARENCE SHANIGAN, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, stated
that SB 81 is only loosely affiliated to tribal sovereignty and
tribal recognition. To Senator Reinbold's mention of HB 123 and
statement about tribes potentially becoming sovereign, he
clarified that Congress recognized most tribes as sovereign
between 1934 and 1941. HB 123 is simply stating that fact and
asking the state to acknowledge it. He stressed that neither HB
123 nor SB 81 asks for anything new or any new authority for
tribes.
MR. SHANIGAN noted that Commissioner Cockrell alluded to the
significant differences between how tribes, except for
Metlakatla, operate in terms of their relationship with the
state and the state's authority. He said there are four
sovereigns in Alaska and all four are identified in the U.S.
Constitution. These are the federal government, the state
government, tribes, and individuals. The 229 tribes in Alaska
are all sovereigns and their authorities are limited based on
Public Law (PL) 280 that Congress passed in the 1950s. This law
ceded criminal jurisdiction to the state.
MR. SHANIGAN referenced Senator Reinbold's question about
administrative costs of 30 percent and explained that Governor
Parnell removed the 15 percent cap on an organization's cost to
administer for the VPSO program because it's expensive to
operate in rural Alaska and organizations often exceeded the
cap. He noted that in some areas the expenses ran as high as 40
percent but the average has been about 28.5 percent.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Senator Reinbold if she had a follow-up.
4:51:20 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked 1) if he was a member of a tribe; 2)
where it says tribes are sovereign; 3) what sovereign means to
him; 4) whether he sees any potential for conflict; and 5) if he
intended to put tribes before individuals [when he mentioned the
hierarchy of sovereignty in Alaska].
MR. SHANIGAN replied 1) he is a member of a tribe; 2) Article I,
Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution recognizes the sovereign
nature of tribes; 3) he is not a legal expert but federal
documents and law reference tribal sovereignty; and 4) Alaska is
one of several states governed by Public Law 280 rather than the
reservation system where the federal government has more control
and authority. In PL 280 states there is a lot more cross
jurisdictional interaction and the state has far more authority
than if there were reservations. Tribal courts in Alaska have
specific limits because of PL 280.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she found the following in Article I,
Section 8:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among
the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
She acknowledged that he said the courts have recognized tribal
sovereignty, but she needed somebody to show where the U.S.
Constitution says tribes are sovereign. She noted she had not
found that in the Constitution of the State of Alaska or state
statute either. She reiterated her ongoing concern about the
term sovereignty and unintended consequences. She added that she
does support the VPSO program, law enforcement in communities,
and more law enforcement in the Bush.
MR. SHANIGAN said he would follow up and bring legal experts to
speak to the matter, but tribal sovereignty is well known as a
fact in the Alaska Native and American Indian communities.
Nothing about tribal sovereignty would change tomorrow if HB 123
were to pass today. The bill simply states the fact that tribes
in Alaska are sovereign. However, because Alaska has never
acknowledged the federal recognition and sovereignty of tribes,
it makes conversations about SB 81 and other bills difficult.
CHAIR SHOWER asked him to provide the legal opinions in written
form and he would share them with the members and enter them
into the record. He asked the sponsor if he had any comments
before he turned to invited testimony.
SENATOR OLSON commented on the ongoing and circular nature of
the conversations about sovereignty.
CHAIR SHOWER turned to invited testimony.
4:57:38 PM
MICHAEL NEMETH, VPSO Program Coordinator, Aleutian Pribilof
Island Association, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in support of
SB 81. He related that this will be his 20th year as a Village
Public Safety Officer. He stated that there is broad agreement
that the public safety needs of Alaskans are paramount and all
discussions about the VPSO program should begin with the
recognition that keeping Alaska's communities safe is the
highest priority. There is also agreement that the VPSO program
is in need of change to better serve Alaskans. He said he never
viewed the program as failed or broken, but as distressed due to
different management styles and varying levels of support over
the last decade. He expressed hope that the non-controversial
solution put forward in SB 81 could pass both bodies this
session.
4:59:04 PM
CAROL PISCOYA, Vice President, Community Services Division,
Kawerak Incorporation, Nome, Alaska, testified in support of SB
81. She reported that Kawerak administers the VPSO program in
the Bering Strait region and is providing service to six of 15
communities. The reason that nine of the 15 communities do not
have any law enforcement is due to recruitment problems, and the
lack of adequate infrastructure to support VPSO programs is an
additional barrier to recruitment. She emphasized the need to
address the crisis in public safety infrastructure and service
in rural Alaska and expressed optimism about the renewed sense
of urgency and collaboration with the current Public Safety
commissioner. She urged the committee to pass SB 81 saying it
will provide the building blocks for regulation changes that
will allow the VPSO program to flourish and provide excellent
public safety services to Alaskans.
5:01:04 PM
CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony on SB 81; finding none, he
closed public testimony.
CHAIR SHOWER mentioned an amendment.
5:01:57 PM
At ease
5:08:48 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and explained that the
committee was talking about how to address the two pages of
suggested amendments that his staff had distributed. He
acknowledged that some members were not comfortable with the
speed the bill was moving and the fact that the suggested
amendments had not been drafted by Legislative Legal Services.
He said there were two options, 1) to work through the suggested
changes or 2) to accept the bill and have the sponsor state on
the record that he would accept the suggested changes exactly as
is and take that to the finance committee. This committee could
then watch to see that all the changes were added appropriately.
He acknowledged that the first option was not viable because the
committee was out of time today. He asked the members to comment
on the viability of the second option.
SENATOR OLSON asked if he could comment on the proposed
amendments.
CHAIR SHOWER suggested he wait until the committee members had a
chance to weigh in.
SENATOR REINBOLD stated that the VPSO program is important and
she supports public safety, but she was a little uncomfortable
moving the bill forward today. She added, "I'm glad we're moving
the amendment. I'm going to trust your word on dealing with that
amendment in the next finance committee." She also requested
that courtesies be extended to all members who bring issues
forward that they deem particularly important. She said she was
willing to make the motion.
CHAIR SHOWER said Senator Reinbold's request should be heard and
acknowledged. He stated that he was comfortable moving the bill
but he would respect the wishes of the committee.
5:12:50 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI commented that he had tracked this issue for
many years and was happy to have the bill move forward because
it had a long way to go. He offered to make the motion.
5:13:41 PM
SENATOR OLSON said he appreciated the committee considering the
bill and he would commit to take the rough draft of amendments
to Legislative Legal Services and present that to the next
committee of referral. He added that he would give a copy to the
chair so the committee could look at whether or not the intent
of the amendments came through.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she has always supported the VPSO program
but she did not want any unintended consequences related to the
issue of sovereignty.
CHAIR SHOWER restated that while he was comfortable with the
bill, he was willing to slow down if that was the will of the
committee.
5:17:12 PM
SENATOR REIBOLD moved to report CSSB 82, work order 32-LS0362\I,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s) plus accompanying documents and recommended
conceptual amendments to the next committee of referral and
authorization for legislative legal to make needed technical and
conforming changes.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Senator Reinbold to restate the motion
without the recommended conceptual amendments.
5:17:57 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to report CSSB 82, work order 32-
LS0362\I, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s).
CHAIR SHOWER found no objection and CSSB 81(CRA) was reported
from the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB0161A.PDF |
SSTA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 161 |
| SB 161 Research Graph 1.26.2022.pdf |
SEDC 3/14/2022 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/14/2022 1:30:00 PM SSTA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 161 |
| SB 161 Research Parties on Presidential Ballots 1.26.2022.pdf |
SEDC 3/14/2022 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/14/2022 1:30:00 PM SSTA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 161 |
| SB 161 Sectional Analysis version A 1.26.2022.pdf |
SEDC 3/14/2022 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/14/2022 1:30:00 PM SSTA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 161 |
| SB 161 Signed Hearing Request 1.26.2022.pdf |
SSTA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 161 |
| SB 161 Sponsor Statement 1.26.2022.pdf |
SEDC 3/14/2022 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/14/2022 1:30:00 PM SSTA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 161 |
| SB 161 Version A.PDF |
SSTA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 161 |
| SJR 20 Support Letter 2.17.22.pdf |
SSTA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 20 |
| SJR 20 Sponsor Statement 2.16.22.pdf |
SSTA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 20 |
| SJR 20 Support Doc NHCA Support of Hearing Protection Act 2.17.22.pdf |
SSTA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 20 |
| SJR 20 Support Doc Sound-Hearing Loss Handout.pdf |
SSTA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 20 |
| SJR 20 Support Doc Suppressor Handout.pdf |
SSTA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 20 |
| SB115 Sponsor Statement 05.06.21.pdf |
SJUD 3/14/2022 1:30:00 PM SSTA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 115 |
| 2021.06.05 SB 115 PSEA Letter of support.pdf |
SEDC 3/14/2022 1:30:00 PM SSTA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 115 |
| 2022.2.15 SB 115 2022 - Letter of support AACOP.pdf |
SEDC 3/14/2022 1:30:00 PM SSTA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 115 |
| fiscal note 22.pdf |
SSTA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 66 |
| SB 81 fiscal note 22 SB081CS-DPS-VPSO-02-16-22.pdf |
SSTA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 81 |
| SB 81 fiscal note 22 SB081CS-DPS-CJISP-02-16-22.pdf |
SSTA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 81 |
| SB 161 Response to State Affairs Questions 2-25-22.pdf |
SSTA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 161 |