Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/22/1995 01:30 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
APRIL 22, 1995
1:30 P.M.
TAPE HFC 95 - 95, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 95 - 95, Side 2, #000 - end.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:30 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kohring
Co-Chair Foster Representative Martin
Representative Mulder Representative Navarre
Representative Brown Representative Kelly
Representative Grussendorf Representative Therriault
Representative Parnell was not present for the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Laurie Otto, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law; Margo Knuth, Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Law; Joshua Fink, Staff to Senator Kelly; Mary
Vollendorf, Staff to Senator Leman.
SUMMARY
HB 201 An Act relating to prisoner litigation,
post-conviction relief, sentence appeals, amending
Alaska Administrative Rule 10, Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure 204, 208, 209, 215, 521, 603,
and 604, and Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure
11, 33, 35, and 35.1; and providing for an
effective date.
CS HB 201 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with zero fiscal
notes by the Alaska Court System, the Department
of Law dated 2/27/95, the Department of
Corrections dated 2/27/95, the Department of
Public Safety dated 2/27/95 and two from the
Department of Administration dated 2/27/95.
SB 5 An Act prescribing the use and characteristics of
voting booths employed in elections and the color
of ballots used in state primary elections.
1
HCS CS SB 5 (FIN) was reported out of Committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with a zero
fiscal note by the Office of the Governor dated
2/16/95.
SB 14 An Act relating to criminal mischief.
CS SB 14 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal impact
notes by the Alaska Court System dated 3/6/95, the
Department of Public Safety dated 3/6/95, the
Department of Law dated 3/6/95, the Department of
Administration dated 3/15/95 and zero fiscal notes
by the Department of Public Safety dated 3/6/95
and the Department of Corrections dated 3/6/95.
HOUSE BILL 201
"An Act relating to prisoner litigation,
post-conviction relief, sentence appeals, amending
Alaska Administrative Rule 10, Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure 204, 208, 209, 215, 521, 603, and
604, and Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure 11, 33, 35,
and 35.1; and providing for an effective date."
Representative Brown explained that Amendment #1 [Attachment
of the appeal within a sixty day time period.
LAURIE OTTO, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, indicated that change made to the notice
of appeal through the amendment was the intent of the
Department and that the amendment provided clarification.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Brown explained Amendment #2 [Attachment #2]
which would delete "60 days" and insert "120 days" on Page
18, Line 14. The language would then read: "(1) may modify
or reduce a sentence within 120 days of the distribution of
the written judgement upon a motion made in the original
criminal case;". Representative Brown thought the change
would provide more flexibility in consideration of sentence
reduction.
Ms. Otto noted that 120 days would be adequate.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #2. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
2
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #3 [Attachment
for the burden of proof. She advised that with the current
language, it would always be the applicant that had to bear
the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. The
new language would state that the evidence could be
different and it would then clarify that.
Ms. Otto agreed that this was a court rule and that it would
provide greater clarification. There being NO OBJECTIONS,
Amendment #3 was adopted.
Representative Navarre MOVED to delete language on Page 17,
Lines 26-28: "The court may not grant a new trial to a
defendant on the ground that the jury's verdict is contrary
to the weight of the evidence". He stated that language was
already included in Rule 33.
Ms. Otto commented that the judge clearly has that authority
now, and would continue to have that authority after the
bill was passed. She noted that deleting that language
would not have a significant impact on the legislation.
Representative Martin pointed out that the language was
within the text of Rule 33 and should remain in the proposed
legislation. Representative Navarre stated that the new
language was "narrowly" defined. He stressed that removal
of that language would not have a significant impact.
Representative Martin disagreed.
Co-Chair Hanley explained that the addition of the language
would create a slight policy change, in that it would limit
the time before the jury meets. Currently, that situation
could be addressed before either the jury meets or after the
verdict is provided. Ms. Otto agreed with Representative
Hanley. She clarified that this would be a minor change and
that it would not affect the contents; she added that the
Department of Law would support the change. Representative
Martin OBJECTED to Amendment #3.
A roll call was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment #3.
IN FAVOR: Navarre, Brown, Grussendorf, Kelly,
Kohring, Foster, Hanley
OPPOSED: Therriault, Martin
Representatives Mulder and Parnell were not present for the
vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7-2).
Representative Navarre MOVED to report CS HB 201 (FIN) out
3
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes.
CS HB 201 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with zero fiscal notes by the
Alaska Court System, the Department of Law dated 2/27/95,
the Department of Corrections dated 2/27/95, the Department
of Public Safety dated 2/27/95 and two by the Department of
Administration dated 2/27/95.
SENATE BILL 5
"An Act prescribing the use and characteristics of
voting booths employed in elections and the color of
ballots used in state primary elections."
JOSHUA FINK, STAFF TO SENATOR TIM KELLY, explained that the
proposed legislation was designed to address concerns by
ensuring the secrecy of ballots and the privacy of voting in
two ways. It would require that half of all booths at each
precinct be curtained booths, and also having all primary
ballots printed on white paper only.
He added that the ballot a voter chooses and how they cast
their vote is a secret matter, not to be shared
indiscriminately without consent. The secret ballot is one
of the basic protections in a democracy. Mr. Fink concluded
that the proposed legislation would remedy the corruptions
within the voting process, adding that it carried a zero
fiscal note.
Mr. Fink stated that Sections 9-21 incorporate the entirety
of HB 132, upon Representative Mackie's request. The
legislation would require candidates running for office to
run on the primary ballot. Mr. Fink provided Committee
members an overview of each section within SB 5.
Representative Brown questioned the "rotation" process. Mr.
Fink commented that a greater effect would happen if a
candidate represented more than one district. Mr. Fink
referenced a proposed amendment [Attachment #4] to Page 1,
Line 6, deleting the words "the back of".
Representative Brown asked how the legislation would work
for the independent candidates. She understood that all
independent candidates would have to file before June 1st;
and should more than three candidates file, that they would
have that same "windowing". She pointed out that a person
could pick any name combination creating a unique name in
order to qualifty for the ballot.
Mr. Fink clarified that the person in that category could
4
file as an independent and could pick any name they wanted
to avoid being lumped in with the other "independents".
Nothing in the bill would prevent that from occuring,
although, he added that the thrust of the legislation would
allow no one to skip the primary.
Representative Therriault explained that the purpose of the
primary election was to choose "a" person from "a" party.
Co-Chair Hanley interjected that concept was being changed.
To be an officially recognized "party" requires a certain
percentage of votes on the statewide ballot. In the past,
one appeared on a primary ballot and was then registered as
a recognized participant. Mr. Fink explained that Page 7,
Section #17, portion (a) and (b) clarifies that language
used for "political groups" rather than "parties".
Representative Brown distributed and MOVED to adopt
Amendment #1. [Attachment #5]. Mr. Fink supported the
amendment. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #2.
[Attachment #4]. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Martin MOVED to report HCS CS SB 5 (FIN) out
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note.
HCS CS SB 5 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the Office of
the Governor dated 2/16/95.
SENATE BILL 14
"An Act relating to criminal mischief."
MARY VOLLENDORF, STAFF TO SENATOR LOREN LEMAN, explained
that SB 14 was introduced as a result to the recent increase
in auto thefts, especially in the urban areas, followed by a
lack of convictions. Under the current law, the crime of
"joyriding" is a Class A misdemeanor, the second offense is
a Class C felony. She added that joyriding is commonly
associated with juveniles and that SB 14 targets that group.
She stated that the bill would help decrease the number of
vehicles stolen, and the tremendous dollar losses suffered
by insurance companies and the victims of theft.
Representative Mulder asked how long the length of the
increased sentence would be. Ms. Vollendorf replied that
there was not a mandatory sentence for juveniles. The
decision would be determined by the judge.
5
Representative Grussendorf commented if the fiscal note was
adequate to accommodate the fiscal obligations associated
with the legislation.
Representative Brown asked the penalty for the first
offense. Ms. Vollendorf replied that the first offense
would be a Class A misdemeanor for a juvenile or an adult.
The second offense for an adult would be a Class C felony,
although, that offense would remain a Class A misdemeanor
for a juvenile until 18 years of age. Representative Brown
asked if Class A misdemeanor would carry mandatory
imprisonment. Ms. Vollendorf advised that it would be
mandatory for an adult, but not for a juvenile.
Representative Brown inquired if consideration had been made
to placing a floor on the age.
MARGO KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, responded that if the defendant was a
juvenile, a sentence could be imposed and they would then
serve in detention rather than in prison. The Department of
Law anticipates, given the youthfulness of the defender,
that it could be possible that they not have a record,
making them an ideal candidate for a Suspended Imposition
Sentence (SIS). She added, then the emphasis would be on
deterrence and rehabilitation through the SIS.
Ms. Knuth reiterated that the intent of the legislation
would be to alleviate juvenile joyriding as it appears to be
escalating. The hope is that when the juvenile is required
to appear before a judge, that they will then come to have a
greater appreciation for the seriousness of the conduct.
Representative Brown asked if the suspension of the drivers
license would be automatic. Ms. Knuth stated that there was
an option of suspension contained in Page 3, Section 5, AS
28.15.1(a), 1(b) which currently authorizes court
revocations of the drivers licenses. She continued, Section
4 would be added. It is the criminal mischief offense, the
joyriding offense.
Representative Mulder noted that the focus of the
legislation would not be on repeated offenders as much as it
was aimed at the initial offender. Ms. Knuth agreed. She
pointed out that offenses in many areas have doubled in the
past couple of years. One half of all the offenses are
being committed by juveniles. Ms. Knuth stated that the
legislative sanctions would help in addressing the "out of
control" juvenile offenders.
(Tape Change, HFC 95-95, Side 2).
Representative Brown asked the difference between the third
6
and the fourth degree of the joyriding offense. Ms. Knuth
explained that the fourth degree offense would be for a
passenger in the vehicle and would be a Class B misdemeanor;
the "criminal mischief" offense in the third degree is for
the person who takes the car; that would be classified a
Class A misdemeanor unless you are an adult. If the
offender is an adult, and it was a second offense, it would
then be a Class C felony.
Representative Brown inquired how many persons would be
expected to be convicted by the offense of "joyriding". She
pointed out that the Department had mentioned an anticipated
increase of 1000 cases per year. She spoke to the
understaffing currently existing within the Department.
Ms. Knuth replied that should the legislation be funded, it
would then receive the Department's attention, although, she
pointed out that prosecutions would be expensive. The
Department of Law has indicated that their priorities will
be "crimes of violence". She indicated that the legislation
would fall below the top priority defense list.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report CS SB 14 (JUD) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS SB 14 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes by the Alaska
Court System dated 3/6/95, the Department of Public Safety
dated 3/6/95, the Department of Law dated 3/6/95, the
Department of Administration dated 3/15/95 and zero fiscal
notes by the Department of Public Safety dated 3/6/95 and
the Department of Corrections dated 3/6/95. #
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 2:20 P.M.
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
APRIL 22, 1995
1:30 P.M.
TAPE HFC 95 - 95, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 95 - 95, Side 2, #000 - end.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:30 P.M.
7
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kohring
Co-Chair Foster Representative Martin
Representative Mulder Representative Navarre
Representative Brown Representative Kelly
Representative Grussendorf Representative Therriault
Representative Parnell was not present for the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Laurie Otto, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law; Margo Knuth, Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Law; Joshua Fink, Staff to Senator Kelly; Mary
Vollendorf, Staff to Senator Leman.
SUMMARY
HB 201 An Act relating to prisoner litigation,
post-conviction relief, sentence appeals, amending
Alaska Administrative Rule 10, Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure 204, 208, 209, 215, 521, 603,
and 604, and Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure
11, 33, 35, and 35.1; and providing for an
effective date.
CS HB 201 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with zero fiscal
notes by the Alaska Court System, the Department
of Law dated 2/27/95, the Department of
Corrections dated 2/27/95, the Department of
Public Safety dated 2/27/95 and two from the
Department of Administration dated 2/27/95.
SB 5 An Act prescribing the use and characteristics of
voting booths employed in elections and the color
of ballots used in state primary elections.
HCS CS SB 5 (FIN) was reported out of Committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with a zero
fiscal note by the Office of the Governor dated
2/16/95.
SB 14 An Act relating to criminal mischief.
CS SB 14 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal impact
notes by the Alaska Court System dated 3/6/95, the
Department of Public Safety dated 3/6/95, the
Department of Law dated 3/6/95, the Department of
Administration dated 3/15/95 and zero fiscal notes
8
by the Department of Public Safety dated 3/6/95
and the Department of Corrections dated 3/6/95.
HOUSE BILL 201
"An Act relating to prisoner litigation,
post-conviction relief, sentence appeals, amending
Alaska Administrative Rule 10, Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure 204, 208, 209, 215, 521, 603, and
604, and Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure 11, 33, 35,
and 35.1; and providing for an effective date."
Representative Brown explained that Amendment #1 [Attachment
of the appeal within a sixty day time period.
LAURIE OTTO, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, indicated that change made to the notice
of appeal through the amendment was the intent of the
Department and that the amendment provided clarification.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Brown explained Amendment #2 [Attachment #2]
which would delete "60 days" and insert "120 days" on Page
18, Line 14. The language would then read: "(1) may modify
or reduce a sentence within 120 days of the distribution of
the written judgement upon a motion made in the original
criminal case;". Representative Brown thought the change
would provide more flexibility in consideration of sentence
reduction.
Ms. Otto noted that 120 days would be adequate.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #2. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #3 [Attachment
for the burden of proof. She advised that with the current
language, it would always be the applicant that had to bear
the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. The
new language would state that the evidence could be
different and it would then clarify that.
Ms. Otto agreed that this was a court rule and that it would
provide greater clarification. There being NO OBJECTIONS,
Amendment #3 was adopted.
Representative Navarre MOVED to delete language on Page 17,
Lines 26-28: "The court may not grant a new trial to a
9
defendant on the ground that the jury's verdict is contrary
to the weight of the evidence". He stated that language was
already included in Rule 33.
Ms. Otto commented that the judge clearly has that authority
now, and would continue to have that authority after the
bill was passed. She noted that deleting that language
would not have a significant impact on the legislation.
Representative Martin pointed out that the language was
within the text of Rule 33 and should remain in the proposed
legislation. Representative Navarre stated that the new
language was "narrowly" defined. He stressed that removal
of that language would not have a significant impact.
Representative Martin disagreed.
Co-Chair Hanley explained that the addition of the language
would create a slight policy change, in that it would limit
the time before the jury meets. Currently, that situation
could be addressed before either the jury meets or after the
verdict is provided. Ms. Otto agreed with Representative
Hanley. She clarified that this would be a minor change and
that it would not affect the contents; she added that the
Department of Law would support the change. Representative
Martin OBJECTED to Amendment #3.
A roll call was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment #3.
IN FAVOR: Navarre, Brown, Grussendorf, Kelly,
Kohring, Foster, Hanley
OPPOSED: Therriault, Martin
Representatives Mulder and Parnell were not present for the
vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7-2).
Representative Navarre MOVED to report CS HB 201 (FIN) out
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes.
CS HB 201 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with zero fiscal notes by the
Alaska Court System, the Department of Law dated 2/27/95,
the Department of Corrections dated 2/27/95, the Department
of Public Safety dated 2/27/95 and two by the Department of
Administration dated 2/27/95.
SENATE BILL 5
"An Act prescribing the use and characteristics of
voting booths employed in elections and the color of
10
ballots used in state primary elections."
JOSHUA FINK, STAFF TO SENATOR TIM KELLY, explained that the
proposed legislation was designed to address concerns by
ensuring the secrecy of ballots and the privacy of voting in
two ways. It would require that half of all booths at each
precinct be curtained booths, and also having all primary
ballots printed on white paper only.
He added that the ballot a voter chooses and how they cast
their vote is a secret matter, not to be shared
indiscriminately without consent. The secret ballot is one
of the basic protections in a democracy. Mr. Fink concluded
that the proposed legislation would remedy the corruptions
within the voting process, adding that it carried a zero
fiscal note.
Mr. Fink stated that Sections 9-21 incorporate the entirety
of HB 132, upon Representative Mackie's request. The
legislation would require candidates running for office to
run on the primary ballot. Mr. Fink provided Committee
members an overview of each section within SB 5.
Representative Brown questioned the "rotation" process. Mr.
Fink commented that a greater effect would happen if a
candidate represented more than one district. Mr. Fink
referenced a proposed amendment [Attachment #4] to Page 1,
Line 6, deleting the words "the back of".
Representative Brown asked how the legislation would work
for the independent candidates. She understood that all
independent candidates would have to file before June 1st;
and should more than three candidates file, that they would
have that same "windowing". She pointed out that a person
could pick any name combination creating a unique name in
order to qualifty for the ballot.
Mr. Fink clarified that the person in that category could
file as an independent and could pick any name they wanted
to avoid being lumped in with the other "independents".
Nothing in the bill would prevent that from occuring,
although, he added that the thrust of the legislation would
allow no one to skip the primary.
Representative Therriault explained that the purpose of the
primary election was to choose "a" person from "a" party.
Co-Chair Hanley interjected that concept was being changed.
To be an officially recognized "party" requires a certain
percentage of votes on the statewide ballot. In the past,
one appeared on a primary ballot and was then registered as
a recognized participant. Mr. Fink explained that Page 7,
Section #17, portion (a) and (b) clarifies that language
11
used for "political groups" rather than "parties".
Representative Brown distributed and MOVED to adopt
Amendment #1. [Attachment #5]. Mr. Fink supported the
amendment. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #2.
[Attachment #4]. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Martin MOVED to report HCS CS SB 5 (FIN) out
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note.
HCS CS SB 5 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the Office of
the Governor dated 2/16/95.
SENATE BILL 14
"An Act relating to criminal mischief."
MARY VOLLENDORF, STAFF TO SENATOR LOREN LEMAN, explained
that SB 14 was introduced as a result to the recent increase
in auto thefts, especially in the urban areas, followed by a
lack of convictions. Under the current law, the crime of
"joyriding" is a Class A misdemeanor, the second offense is
a Class C felony. She added that joyriding is commonly
associated with juveniles and that SB 14 targets that group.
She stated that the bill would help decrease the number of
vehicles stolen, and the tremendous dollar losses suffered
by insurance companies and the victims of theft.
Representative Mulder asked how long the length of the
increased sentence would be. Ms. Vollendorf replied that
there was not a mandatory sentence for juveniles. The
decision would be determined by the judge.
Representative Grussendorf commented if the fiscal note was
adequate to accommodate the fiscal obligations associated
with the legislation.
Representative Brown asked the penalty for the first
offense. Ms. Vollendorf replied that the first offense
would be a Class A misdemeanor for a juvenile or an adult.
The second offense for an adult would be a Class C felony,
although, that offense would remain a Class A misdemeanor
for a juvenile until 18 years of age. Representative Brown
asked if Class A misdemeanor would carry mandatory
imprisonment. Ms. Vollendorf advised that it would be
mandatory for an adult, but not for a juvenile.
Representative Brown inquired if consideration had been made
12
to placing a floor on the age.
MARGO KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, responded that if the defendant was a
juvenile, a sentence could be imposed and they would then
serve in detention rather than in prison. The Department of
Law anticipates, given the youthfulness of the defender,
that it could be possible that they not have a record,
making them an ideal candidate for a Suspended Imposition
Sentence (SIS). She added, then the emphasis would be on
deterrence and rehabilitation through the SIS.
Ms. Knuth reiterated that the intent of the legislation
would be to alleviate juvenile joyriding as it appears to be
escalating. The hope is that when the juvenile is required
to appear before a judge, that they will then come to have a
greater appreciation for the seriousness of the conduct.
Representative Brown asked if the suspension of the drivers
license would be automatic. Ms. Knuth stated that there was
an option of suspension contained in Page 3, Section 5, AS
28.15.1(a), 1(b) which currently authorizes court
revocations of the drivers licenses. She continued, Section
4 would be added. It is the criminal mischief offense, the
joyriding offense.
Representative Mulder noted that the focus of the
legislation would not be on repeated offenders as much as it
was aimed at the initial offender. Ms. Knuth agreed. She
pointed out that offenses in many areas have doubled in the
past couple of years. One half of all the offenses are
being committed by juveniles. Ms. Knuth stated that the
legislative sanctions would help in addressing the "out of
control" juvenile offenders.
(Tape Change, HFC 95-95, Side 2).
Representative Brown asked the difference between the third
and the fourth degree of the joyriding offense. Ms. Knuth
explained that the fourth degree offense would be for a
passenger in the vehicle and would be a Class B misdemeanor;
the "criminal mischief" offense in the third degree is for
the person who takes the car; that would be classified a
Class A misdemeanor unless you are an adult. If the
offender is an adult, and it was a second offense, it would
then be a Class C felony.
Representative Brown inquired how many persons would be
expected to be convicted by the offense of "joyriding". She
pointed out that the Department had mentioned an anticipated
increase of 1000 cases per year. She spoke to the
understaffing currently existing within the Department.
13
Ms. Knuth replied that should the legislation be funded, it
would then receive the Department's attention, although, she
pointed out that prosecutions would be expensive. The
Department of Law has indicated that their priorities will
be "crimes of violence". She indicated that the legislation
would fall below the top priority defense list.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report CS SB 14 (JUD) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS SB 14 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes by the Alaska
Court System dated 3/6/95, the Department of Public Safety
dated 3/6/95, the Department of Law dated 3/6/95, the
Department of Administration dated 3/15/95 and zero fiscal
notes by the Department of Public Safety dated 3/6/95 and
the Department of Corrections dated 3/6/95.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 2:20 P.M.
14
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|