Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/16/2010 09:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB36 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 16, 2010
9:08 a.m.
9:08:05 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Hawker, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Vice-Chair
Representative Allan Austerman
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Les Gara
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Woodie Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Kyle Johansen; Sonia Christensen, Staff,
Representative Johansen; Kevin Brooks, Deputy Commissioner,
Department of Administration
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Alpheus Bullard, Attorney, Legislative Affairs; Holly Hill,
Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission
(APOC); Thomas Dosik, Attorney, Department of Law;
Lieutenant Governor Craig Campbell
SUMMARY
HB 36 INITIATIVES: CONTRIBUTIONS/ PROCEDURES
HB 36 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
9:08:12 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze brought the meeting to order and explained
the morning agenda. He informed that the Lt. Governor was
available by teleconference for questions.
Representative Kyle Johansen indicated that he had looked
at the five amendments.
9:09:58 AM AT EASE
9:10:52 AM RECONVENNED
HOUSE BILL NO. 36
"An Act prohibiting initiatives that are substantially
similar to those that failed within the previous two
years; relating to financial disclosure reporting
dates for persons, groups, and nongroup entities that
expend money in support of or in opposition to
initiatives, initiative information contained in
election pamphlets, initiative petitions, initiative
petition circulators, and public hearings for
initiatives; and requiring a standing committee of the
legislature to consider initiatives scheduled for
appearance on the election ballot."
9:11:03 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 26-LS0197\S.4,
Bullard, 3/11/10 (copy on file):
Page 2, line 6:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 3 AS 15.13.050 is ame3nded by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) If a group intends to make contributions or
expenditures only in support of or opposition to a
single initiative on the ballot, the title or
common name of the initiative must be a part of the
name of the group. If the group intends to make
contributions or expenditures only in opposition to a
single initiative on the ballot, the group's name must
clearly state that it opposes the initiative by using
a word such as "opposes," "opposing," "in opposition
to," or "against" in the group's name.
Co-Chair Hawker OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE KYLE JOHANSEN mentioned that this was a
sponsor amendment. He noted that Representative Doogan had
a question about the word "only" in line 4.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if Representative Doogan had an
amendment to an amendment. Representative Doogan replied
that he did not.
SONIA CHRISTENSEN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN remarked
that the current statute this amendment is modeled after
says that 33 1/3 percent of a group's funds, if used for a
specific candidate, must have the candidate's name must be
in their title. There were some issues with the word "only"
on line 4 that may be creating a loophole so groups could
spread out their funds to avoid having to name themselves
clearly. The sponsor is open to including more specific
language such as 33 1/3 percent of their funds going toward
a certain ballot measure would require that ballot measure
in their title.
Co-Chair Hawker WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment 1.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW Amendment 1.
9:13:19 AM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5, 26-
LS0197\S.11, Bullard, 3/11/10 (copy on file):
Page 6, line 21:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) Penalties for a violation of this section
shall not include removal of an initiative from
the ballot."
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for the purposes of discussion.
Representative Johansen remarked that he had no problem
with the amendment.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR CRAIG CAMPBELL (via teleconference)
asked for further explanation of Amendment 5.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that Amendment 5 deals with the
Lt. Governor conducting the public hearings within the
judicial districts.
Representative Gara read Amendment 5. He noted that under
this bill the Lt. Governor has to hold a few meetings
before the initiative goes on the ballot or before the
vote. He depicted a scenario where the Lt. Governor,
hostile to an initiative, might not hold the required
hearings. In that case, the penalty should not be that the
courts strike the initiative off the ballot.
Representative Gara emphasized that this amendment was not
directed toward the present Lt. Governor.
9:15:46 AM
Lt. Governor Campbell responded to the amendment and
believed that the public does need to hear both sides of
any initiative. He liked that this helped make an
initiative more transparent and agreed that the public
hearings were important.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked the Lt. Governor if he could imagine
any elected official not wanting to go out and discuss an
issue. Lt. Governor Campbell agreed that he could not
foresee that happening. He noted that the initiative
process in the office of the Lt. Governor was unbiased and
non political. He added that the Lt. Governor is the
administrator, not the enforcer.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the Attorney General could
provide information that affects the Lt. Governor's
decision. Lt. Governor Campbell explained that the
initiatives rest within the Lt. Governor's office, but the
process is much more than the Lt. Governor. When
initiatives are received, the Attorney General performs a
review to see if it meets the merit of being on the ballot.
The Lt. Governor certifies an initiative based on the
recommendations from the Attorney General. Initiatives are
done on the course of law, not politics.
9:18:11 AM
Representative Fairclough remarked to Lt. Governor Campbell
that a recent discussion had questioned the Lt. Governor's
office's ability to carry out the public hearings without
additional cost. Lt. Governor Campbell noted the zero
fiscal note attached to the bill and maintained that he
already travels a great deal around the state and
conducting these hearings would be within his existing
travel budget.
9:19:35 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze thanked Lt. Governor Campbell for his
participation in the meeting.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment 5.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 5 was adopted.
Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 26-LS0197\S.1
Bullard, 1/25/10 (copy on file):
Page 1, line 1, following "initiative":
Insert "and those who file or organize in order
to file them"
Page 4, following line 30:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 8 AS 15.13.400(8) is amended to read:
(8) "group means
(A) every state and regional executive
committee of a political party; [and]
(B) an combination of two or more
individuals acting jointly who organize for the
principal purpose of influencing the outcome of one or
more elections and who take action the major purpose
of which is to influence the outcome of an election; a
group that makes expenditures or receives
contributions with the authorization or consent,
express or implied, or under the control, direct or
indirect, of a candidate shall be considered to be
controlled by that candidate; a group whose major
purpose is to further the nomination, election, or
candidacy of only one individual, or intends to expend
more than 50 percent of its money on a single
candidate, shall be considered to be controlled by
that candidate and its actions done with the
candidate's knowledge and consent unless, within 10
days from the date the candidate learns of the
existence of the group the candidate files with the
commission, on a form provided by the commission, an
affidavit that the group is operating without the
candidate's control; a group organized for more than
one year preceding an election and endorsing
candidates for more than one office or more than one
political party is presumed not to be controlled by a
candidate; however, a group that contributes more than
50 percent of its money to or on behalf of one
candidate shall be considered to support only one
candidate for purposes of AS 15.13.070, whether or not
control of the group has been disclaimed by the
candidate; and
(C) any combination of two or more
individuals acting jointly who organize for the
principal purpose of filing an initiative proposal
application under AS 15.45.020 or who file an
initiative proposal application under AS 15.45.020;"
Co-Chair Hawker OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Johansen remarked that this amendment was
from Alaska Public Offices commission (APOC) and he saw no
reason to oppose it.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that Alaska Public Offices
commission (APOC) is reticent to discuss issues and take
positions on amendments.
9:21:06 AM
Representative Austerman requested that there be a tie in
regarding the title change to the statute.
KEVIN BROOKS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, offered that APOC is hesitant to take any
position, but would be available to answer any questions and
act as a resource. He stated that his understanding of the
amendment is that the current language deals with elections
and the amendment would broaden it to cover the initiative
process. The corresponding title change would be appropriate
for clarification.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if this is an amendment advocated on
behalf of the administration. Mr. Brooks believed that based
on intent of the bill, it would help clarify and administer
their role.
Co-Chair Stoltze emphasized that someone must take a
position on something if it is being advocated.
Representative Johansen interjected that Amendment 2 and 3
were brought to his office by the administration therefore
he assumed this is something that they wanted and a decision
on their part had been made to support these amendments. Mr.
Brooks clarified that the amendments are appropriate and the
administration does support them.
9:23:49 AM
Representative Austerman questioned the title change
language and requested drafter, Mr. Bullard, be available
to answer questions. Co-Chair Stoltze contended that
legislative legal worked with APOC and the Department of
Administration.
9:24:44 AM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS (via
teleconference), indicated he was available for questions.
Representative Austerman asked him to explain why the title
is changed on Amendment 2. Mr. Bullard spoke to the title
change in the amendment and clarified that the title in
every bill be an accurate description of the content. This
amendment operates to expand the definition of "group"
which is outside ballot initiatives and applications.
Representative Austerman asked if it would make a
difference in the change in item (c) if there was not a
title change. Mr. Bullard did not believe that legally or
procedurally that the title change should affect the
process; the change is just a more accurate description of
the bill's content.
9:27:02 AM
Representative Gara stressed that this amendment seemed
lopsided; those who support the initiative must file, but
those who oppose the initiative do not need to file. He
wondered if Alaska Public Offices Commission was looking at
language to help deal with this. He believed that if an
amendment is opposed then no one would find out until 30
days before an election, but those who support the
initiative are recognized on Day 1.
Mr. Brooks remarked that he tightened existing language in
the bill, but did not look at other possibilities.
9:28:14 AM
HOLLY HILL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA PUBLIC OFFICES
COMMISSION (APOC) (via teleconference) spoke of Amendment 2
and said that part (C) clarifies the purpose, but different
phrasing or language could be added for further
clarification. She stressed that she does not support or
oppose amendment.
Representative Gara thought her recommendations might go
too far. He offered if someone proposed a high profile
initiative like parental consent or mining, then there may
be people who dislike it and organize meetings around their
table. He was not sure if they should be required to file,
but the public would be interested in any amount of money
spent.
Ms. Hill asked that Mr. Dosik provide further
clarification.
THOMAS DOSIK, ATTORNEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via
teleconference) noted that the amendment was originally
just meant to clarify some of the language in Section I of
the bill. The bill language required reporting of those who
spent $500 or more for a group organizing for the principle
purpose of filing an initiative proposal. It did not seem
necessary to include in the amendment a group organized to
oppose an amendment. The small group scenario would not
qualify until they took action.
9:32:03 AM
Representative Gara argued that this technical amendment
takes one side over another.
Co-Chair Hawker disagreed with the analysis. This is not a
conjunctive defining one group in this provision but three
stand separate qualifications to be a group. He was
concerned that in content of proposed amendment it is
either filing or opposing. He thought better language
needed for further conversation.
Co-Chair Hawker asked if this amendment will be revisited
and rewritten.
Co-Chair Hawker MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
Representative Austerman contended that if it is to be
rewritten he would like to know if the title change is
something the sponsor wants or not.
Co-Chair Hawker WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW Amendment 2.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that he would not be offering
Amendment 3. Representative Kelly asked if Amendment 3
would be offered at another meeting. Co-Chair Stoltze did
not believe it would be brought up.
Representative Austerman remarked if Amendment 3 is
offered, he would keep the language, but strike the title
change.
9:36:38 AM
Representative Doogan MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4, 26-
LS0197\S.8, Bullard, 3/15/10 (copy on file):
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "and to ballot initiatives"
Insert", to ballot initiatives, and to
communications made in connection with initiative
elections"
Page 2, following line 19:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"*Sec. 4. AS 15.13.090(a) is amended to read:
(a) All communications shall be clearly
identified by the words "paid for by" followed by
the name and address of the person [CANDIDATE,
GROUP, NONGROUP ENTITY, OR INDIVIDUAL] paying for
the communication. In addition,
(1) candidates and groups may identify the name
of their campaign chairperson; and
(2) a person paying for a communication relating
to an initiative shall clearly
(A) if applicable, identify the person's
principal officer of the person, approving the
communications;
(B) include a statement from the person, or
principal officer of the person, approving the
communication;
(C) provide the address of the person, if
the person is an individual, group, nongroup entity,
or other nonprofit organization, or the address of the
person's principal place of business; and
(D) identify the fie contributors
contributing the largest amounts to the person, if
any, during the 12-month period before the state of
the communication, with words "top five
contributors."[.]
*Sec. 5.AS 15.13.090 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) In this section, "contributors" means the true
source of the funds being contributed to the person
paying for the communication."
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for the purposes of discussion.
Representative Doogan explained that his amendment is an
attempt to make sure that the names of the principle
funders of initiatives, on either side, are made available
to the public. It would set out requirements for someone
advertising for or against an initiative and require that
these advertisements would include the names of the five
principle funders of the initiative for or against.
Representative Johansen explained that this is same
declaimer as on the website. He had no problem with the
concept, but questioned how this could be practically
achieved at the end of a 30 second commercial.
Representative Doogan remarked that it does not necessarily
have to be five names; it could be shortened to three
names. His goal was to make sure that the people knew who
was paying for this advertisement.
9:40:34 AM
Co-Chair Hawker commented that it was important that the
language be clarified if it is put into law. He alleged
that the initiative may only have three or less sponsors
paying for the advertisement. He suggested other
possibilities in regards to donors and offered that one
might consider identifying this information online with a
web reference in the advertising.
9:41:44 AM
Representative Doogan agreed that would solve the problem
for those people who wanted to do the research, but not for
those who were just listening to the advertisement. He
noted in campaign ads, the name of the sponsor is revealed
when the advertisement is heard. He was not sure if Co-
Chair Hawker's suggestion gets where he wants to go with
his amendment. Co-Chair Stoltze asked if putting the top
three contributors would adequately define who was funding
the initiative. Representative Doogan replied not
necessarily. It provides information to people listening
and prohibits big funders from hiding behind some made-up
name. Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that in looking at the
intent, maybe it should be the top three contributors over
certain amounts. He believed it was Representative Doogan's
intent to try and see who may be trying to buy the
election. Maybe a number has to be chosen that triggers the
announcement.
9:44:25 AM
Representative Doogan agreed that was right. He remarked
that if it said the top three people over $500 that would
be a better indicator for full disclosure. Co-Chair Stoltze
noted that there are usually two sides to an initiative and
it is usually reported who is funding it. Representative
Doogan agreed that is true, but not in every case. He
wanted the state to be responsible for getting accurate
information to the people on who is funding initiatives.
Co-Chair Stoltze agreed on part of that, but the point is
to identify who is bankrolling the initiative.
9:46:38 AM
Representative Gara agreed the concern is that the $500
only applies to regular campaigns, but in initiatives the
contributions are unlimited. Co-Chair Stoltze acknowledged
that it depends on the initiative.
Representative Johansen responded that he likes the concept
of Co-Chair Hawker, but was concerned that APOC would not
be able to handle it. The information is on commercials
now, but he is not opposed to Representative Doogan's
amendment.
9:48:20 AM
Mr. Brooks responded that he had no comment, but would like
to hear from Ms. Hill. Ms. Hill responded she does not have
an opinion. She noted there are several other bills
referring to the same set of language for disclaimers.
Co-Chair Stoltze inquired about the ability to gather the
information. Ms. Hill declared the amendment could be
implemented as offered.
9:49:31 AM
Vice-Chair Thomas explained that he was not thrilled with
websites since many in his district were not as
knowledgeable about computers. He emphasized that most of
his constituents wanted to read or hear the information.
Representative Fairclough wondered in the amendment if
there would be a loophole with a 12 month period. If APOC
had to intervene, the amount could be given before and
money could be out there and ready. In an election cycle,
candidates have an eighteen month cycle when they can start
raising money. She asked Ms. Hill if the right number is 12
months or 18 months to capture all money influencing an
initiative prior to it reaching a ballot. Ms. Hill
responded that she does not have an opinion, but ballot
initiatives have a certain time frame to gather signatures
and get on the ballot. She added they could be a multiyear
process.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if Ms. Hill had a technical
observation on how this process would work. Ms. Hill
responded that there was no data on this type of process
because it is not required. Representative Fairclough
inquired if the identification would require the first and
last name or just the last name of the contributor.
9:53:27 AM
Representative Doogan contended that he had no problem
specifying both names, since he did not believe APOC would
do anything with just one name anyway.
Co-Chair Hawker expressed his concern attaching any
amendment that compromises the ability of the bill. He
maintained that the bill stood on its own and was very well
crafted. He read from Section 4, line 9-10 and agreed with
subsection (1) on line 13-14 and subsection (2)(A), line
15-16. He noted in (A) one could still list a fraudulent
name for the "principal officer and the officer's title"
section. He continued that (B) is already in the federal
statutes so is not necessary. Item (C) is now getting into
the address of the group and the principal officer which is
redundant and confusing. He believed the real substance in
the amendment is in (D) in identifying who was paying for
this initiative. Co-Chair Hawker thought it would be
practical and informative if it simply made a statement
that the disclosure shall include the name of any
contributor who provided greater than ten percent of the
total funding received. This eliminates the problems with
dates. He did believe there would have to be additional
language to identify a contributor. Co-Chair Hawker asked
Representative Johansen if this was not a complex issue
that might be addressed on its own and not tagged into the
bill.
9:58:03 AM
Representative Johansen believed the bill stood on its own.
Co-Chair Stoltze agreed that the definitions must be clear
but not a meaningless more complicated exercise.
Representative Kelly inquired how other states have handled
this situation.
Representative Johansen remarked that Ms. Christensen had
been researching this issue for three and a half years and
could comment to the choices in other states.
Ms. Christensen asserted that there are a few other states
that want this type of requirement. Most of them list the
contributors in the election pamphlet. She agreed to
provide more information if it was wanted. Representative
Kelly emphasized that he wanted to make sure all resources
had been tapped.
Co-Chair Hawker indicated that he was informed that the
language is being considered in other legislation making
its way through the legislative system. The information is
so complex so that it deserves legislation on its own.
10:00:25 AM
Representative Doogan declared that this language comes
from the legal department. He contended that he would have
a difficult time supporting this legislation if it did not
contain the necessary language from the beginning. He
emphasized that he just wants the public to know who is
funding an initiative.
Co-Chair Stoltze agreed that is a good concept, but would
like to see it resolved through committee.
10:03:07 AM
Representative Austerman pointed out that the language was
written by the same legislative legal attorney. He
suggested that Mr. Bullard explain his reasons for writing
the amendment in this way.
Mr. Bullard explained that Amendment 4 was requested and
modeled on a provision from a senate bill currently under
consideration in the Senate Finance Committee. This was
requested and what was drafted. Co-Chair Stoltze asked
Representative Doogan if this language captured his intent.
Representative Doogan agreed that the goal was to make sure
that the people who place and pay for ads on initiatives
are properly identified at the time the ad is broadcast.
Mr. Bullard responded there is a great deal of latitude on
how this is approached. He noted that there is nothing that
requires the sub paragraphs to read exactly the way they
do. These are dictated by policy choices and as an
amalgamation of other things seen in federal and state
statutes that have proved effective. He noted that it could
read differently to better approach the needs of this
state.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if Mr. Bullard might have taken a
different approach if the senate bill did not exist.
10:07:00 AM
Mr. Bullard responded what is drafted is what was
requested.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Doogan WITHDREW Amendment 4.
HB 36 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:08 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB36.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM HJUD 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 HJUD Pkt. 4.13.09.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM HJUD 4/13/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 HJUD Pkt. 4.13.09.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM HJUD 4/15/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 OOG FN.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM HJUD 4/15/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB036-OOG-LtGOV-4-17-09.pdf |
HFIN 4/18/2009 8:30:00 AM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| 01 HB36 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| 02 HB36 CSSSHB36(JUD) v. S.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| 03 HB36 HJUD Amendments.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| 04 HB36 Sectional.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| 06 HB36 Letters SupportOpposition.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| 07 HB36 Legal Opinions.pdf |
HFIN 4/18/2009 8:30:00 AM HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| 08 HB36 Back up.pdf |
HFIN 4/18/2009 8:30:00 AM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| SSHB 36 Hearing Request Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/18/2009 8:30:00 AM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| SSHB 36 Hearing Request Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 4/18/2009 8:30:00 AM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| SSHB 36 Hearing Request Backup.pdf |
HFIN 4/18/2009 8:30:00 AM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| SSHB 36 Hearing Request Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| test |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| SSHB 36 Sponsor Statement .pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36 Sectional Analysis Version S CSSSHB36 Recent.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| SSHB 36 Backup.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 NEW Fiscal Note Admin.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 Thoma Opinion.pdf |
HFIN 2/8/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 OOG FN.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM HJUD 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| HB 36 Amendments #4-5 Doogan-Gara.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |