Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519

03/20/2014 08:30 AM FINANCE

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 220(FIN) Out of Committee
                  HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                      March 20, 2014                                                                                            
                         8:35 a.m.                                                                                              
8:35:34 AM                                                                                                                    
CALL TO ORDER                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Stoltze called the  House Finance Committee meeting                                                                    
to order at 8:35 a.m.                                                                                                           
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair                                                                                         
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair                                                                                           
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair                                                                                          
Representative Mia Costello                                                                                                     
Representative Bryce Edgmon                                                                                                     
Representative Les Gara                                                                                                         
Representative David Guttenberg                                                                                                 
Representative Lindsey Holmes                                                                                                   
Representative Cathy Munoz                                                                                                      
Representative Steve Thompson                                                                                                   
Representative Tammie Wilson                                                                                                    
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
Representative  Wes  Keller,  Sponsor; Senator  Pete  Kelly;                                                                    
Susanne  DiPietro,   Executive  Director,   Alaska  Judicial                                                                    
Council; Nancy Meade, General  Counsel, Alaska Court System;                                                                    
Daniel  George, Staff,  Representative Bill  Stoltze; Thomas                                                                    
Studler,   Staff,  Representative   Pete  Higgins;   Michael                                                                    
Hanley,  Commissioner,  Department  of Education  and  Early                                                                    
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE                                                                                                    
David  Landry,  Self,  Anchorage; Donald  McClintock,  Self,                                                                    
Anchorage;  Nicole Borromeo,  Alaska Federation  of Natives,                                                                    
Anchorage; Matt  Peterson, Self, Anchorage;  Darrel Gardner,                                                                    
Self, Anchorage; Mike Coons,  Self, Palmer; Fritz Pettyjohn,                                                                    
Self,  Standard California;  Michael  Pauley, Alaska  Family                                                                    
Council, Seattle Washington.                                                                                                    
HJR 18    CONST. AM: ELECTED ATTORNEY GENERAL                                                                                   
          HJR 18 was HEARD and HELD in committee for                                                                            
          further consideration.                                                                                                
HJR 33    CONST. AM: MEMBERSHIP OF JUDICIAL COUNCIL                                                                             
          HJR 33 was HEARD and HELD in committee for                                                                            
          further consideration.                                                                                                
HB 220    REPEAL SECONDARY SCHOOL EXIT EXAM                                                                                     
          CSHB 220 (FIN) was  REPORTED out of committee with                                                                    
          a  "do  pass"  recommendation  and  with  one  new                                                                    
          fiscal   impact  note   from  the   Department  of                                                                    
          Education and Early Development.                                                                                      
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 33                                                                                                 
     "Proposing amendments to the  Constitution of the State                                                                    
     of  Alaska to  increase the  number of  members on  the                                                                    
     judicial council  and relating to the  initial terms of                                                                    
     new members appointed to the judicial council."                                                                            
8:36:54 AM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  WES  KELLER,  SPONSOR, referenced  CSHJR  33                                                                    
(JUD),   legislation  that   proposed   to  amend   Alaska's                                                                    
constitution to increase the  number of non-attorney members                                                                    
of  the judicial  council from  three to  six and  the total                                                                    
number of council  members from seven to ten.  The intent of                                                                    
the  resolution  was two-fold.  First,  he  argued that  the                                                                    
legislation  would provide  for  better representation  from                                                                    
around the  state with  additional seats  potentially filled                                                                    
by individuals from  rural areas presently underrepresented.                                                                    
Secondly, chances of the chief  justice having to step in to                                                                    
cast  a  deciding  vote  and  being  exposed  to  subsequent                                                                    
criticism  would  be  reduced  by  changing  the  number  of                                                                    
regular voting members from an even to an odd number.                                                                           
He  relayed that  in  a hearing  past  Chief Justice  Walter                                                                    
Carpeneti,  testified that  ties  were rare.  He also  noted                                                                    
that ties  had become more  common recently. He  thanked the                                                                    
committee  for considering  bringing  the  issue before  the                                                                    
people of the State of Alaska for a vote.                                                                                       
Co-Chair Stoltze OPENED public testimony.                                                                                       
8:41:44 AM                                                                                                                    
SUSANNE  DIPIETRO,   EXECUTIVE  DIRECTOR,   ALASKA  JUDICIAL                                                                    
COUNCIL, stated  that the council  had not taken  a position                                                                    
on the legislation.  She identified three areas  of focus in                                                                    
her testimony.  First, she  would speak about Alaska's merit                                                                    
selection   and  retention   system  and   how  it   worked.                                                                    
Secondly,  she would  provide  information  about how  other                                                                    
states  structured  their judicial  nominating  commissions.                                                                    
Finally,  she would  discuss the  founders' intent  from the                                                                    
constitutional   convention  when   they  adopted   Alaska's                                                                    
selection and retention system.                                                                                                 
Ms.  Dipietro  explained  that   the  judicial  council  was                                                                    
responsible  for screening  judges for  nomination prior  to                                                                    
the  governor's review  and appointment.  She also  informed                                                                    
the committee that  the council was in  charge of evaluating                                                                    
sitting judges  for retention and  that every  sitting judge                                                                    
must be  confirmed by  voters in an  election process.   She                                                                    
noted  the  council  was  also  accountable  for  conducting                                                                    
studies to improve  the administration of justice.   Some of                                                                    
the   studies  she   cited  included   criminal  sentencing,                                                                    
criminal recidivism, and mediation.                                                                                             
8:44:39 AM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  DiPietro stressed  Alaska's  extensive and  transparent                                                                    
judicial selection  process.  She pointed  out that Alaska's                                                                    
system was  frequently used as  a model by other  states and                                                                    
was called  upon for technical assistance.   Alaska provided                                                                    
information  to  the public  more  than  any other  judicial                                                                    
council  in the  country, issuing  press releases  for every                                                                    
vacancy, accepting public  comments throughout the selection                                                                    
process, and conducting public  hearings in judicial vacancy                                                                    
locations.  She referenced  an  upcoming  public hearing  in                                                                    
Barrow  for  a  superior  court judge.    In  contrast,  she                                                                    
remarked that  other judicial  selection commissions  do not                                                                    
reveal the names of applicants.                                                                                                 
Ms.  DiPietro explained  that there  are three  non-attorney                                                                    
council  members   appointed  by  the  governor   and  three                                                                    
attorneys  appointed by  the bar  association.   The council                                                                    
members  agreed  unanimously 62  percent  of  the time  when                                                                    
voting  on candidate  qualifications.  Votes were  unanimous                                                                    
with the exception of one member 19 percent of the time.                                                                        
8:47:49 AM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  DiPietro  reported  that  of the  38  states  that  had                                                                    
judicial nominating  commissions 18  had an equal  number of                                                                    
attorney and non-attorney members. Five  of the states had a                                                                    
larger   number  of   non-attorney  members   than  attorney                                                                    
members.  However, in four of  the five it was required that                                                                    
a  majority  of the  non-attorney  members  be of  different                                                                    
political   parties.   The   system   in   Alaska   required                                                                    
appointment   without  regard   to  political   affiliation.                                                                    
Lastly, she said Alaska founders  embraced the theory of the                                                                    
Missouri Plan  which specified that the  predominance of the                                                                    
vote  of  the  judicial  council would  go  to  professional                                                                    
individuals  who knew  the  qualifications  of their  fellow                                                                    
8:50:13 AM                                                                                                                    
DAVID   LANDRY,   SELF,  ANCHORAGE   (via   teleconference),                                                                    
testified as  a business owner  in opposition to HJR  33. He                                                                    
opined   that  the   legislation   undervalued  the   expert                                                                    
knowledge attorneys  bring to the  table during  the process                                                                    
of selecting  judges and mischaracterized the  nature of the                                                                    
bar  association.  He  confirmed  that as  a  contractor  he                                                                    
valued input from his colleagues  because of their knowledge                                                                    
and familiarity of  a shared vocation. He  believed that the                                                                    
current  make-up and  balance of  the judicial  council made                                                                    
use of professional  knowledge in a similar way.  He went on                                                                    
to  contend  that  it   was  the  governor's  constitutional                                                                    
responsibility  to ensure  the appointment  of a  regionally                                                                    
diverse group of council members.                                                                                               
Mr. Landry  pointed out the  need for cases to  be evaluated                                                                    
by fair  and capable  judges - judges  appointed by  the bar                                                                    
association.   He claimed that the  legislation depicted the                                                                    
bar association as ill-intentioned  but believed the current                                                                    
judicial  council  make-up  was  only a  problem  for  those                                                                    
interested  in   having  it   politicized.  He   wanted  the                                                                    
selection  process to  result  in  confident, vetted  judges                                                                    
that were held in high esteem by their peers.                                                                                   
8:54:21 AM                                                                                                                    
DONALD  MCCLINTOCK,  SELF, ANCHORAGE  (via  teleconference),                                                                    
spoke  in  opposition  to  the  legislation.  He  began  his                                                                    
testimony informing  the committee  he was a  current member                                                                    
of the  board of governors  for the Alaska  Bar Association,                                                                    
one of its past presidents,  and an applicant for the vacant                                                                    
2012 seat  for the Alaska  Supreme Court. He  indicated that                                                                    
he was speaking on his  own behalf outlining two points; the                                                                    
impact of  the bill  shifting the  balance of  power between                                                                    
the judicial branch and the  executive branch and deterrence                                                                    
of qualified applicants.  He reported that over  the last 33                                                                    
years,  he  witnessed  a  very  competent  and  hard-working                                                                    
judiciary, fostered  by an admirable selection  process.  He                                                                    
disclosed  that  in  his experience  as  a  prior  applicant                                                                    
appearing  before   the  judicial  council,   the  selection                                                                    
process was  driven based on aptitude  rather than political                                                                    
persuasion. He commented that over  the years past governors                                                                    
have  done a  fine job  selecting judges  and following  the                                                                    
process currently  in place. He  expressed his  concern with                                                                    
giving  the governor  the commanding  majority  vote of  the                                                                    
judicial  council   and  mentioned  that  the   state  would                                                                    
potentially loose  qualified applicants  if the  council was                                                                    
stacked  leaning towards  one  party or  another. He  argued                                                                    
that the state  needs the broadest pool of  people to choose                                                                    
from  and believed  an unintended  consequence would  result                                                                    
from politicizing  the selection  process.  In  closing, the                                                                    
judicial  council   was  charged   with  picking   the  best                                                                    
qualified people for the job.  He concluded that the current                                                                    
system  had  been working  admirably  since  statehood.   He                                                                    
reiterated his opposition to HJR 33.                                                                                            
8:59:51 AM                                                                                                                    
NICOLE  BORROMEO,   ALASKA  FEDERATION  OF   NATIVES  (AFN),                                                                    
ANCHORAGE   (via   teleconference),  testified   in   strong                                                                    
opposition to  the legislation and stated  that AFN believed                                                                    
both  the  Alaska  Constitution   and  the  Alaska  Judicial                                                                    
Council  worked  well.  She  mentioned  that  the  judiciary                                                                    
functioned free of scandals, corruption  and other ills that                                                                    
plagued other  non-merit based  systems. She  contended that                                                                    
the reasons outlined for introducing  HJR 33, increasing the                                                                    
council's   rural   representation  and   guarding   against                                                                    
attorney  dominance,   were  not  truly  addressed   in  the                                                                    
proposed legislation.  Ms. Borromeo  asserted that there was                                                                    
no  portion  of the  bill  that  specifically assured  rural                                                                    
representation;  it only  added  three non-attorney  members                                                                    
selected by  the governor.   Also,  there was  no indication                                                                    
that  the  judicial  council,  in   its  current  form,  was                                                                    
significantly  dominated  by   attorney  members  over  non-                                                                    
attorney members.                                                                                                               
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that the issue would be revisited.                                                                      
9:02:25 AM                                                                                                                    
MATT PETERSON,  SELF, ANCHORAGE (via  teleconference), spoke                                                                    
against  the  bill.  He  testified   that  in  his  personal                                                                    
experience  as  a  35-year  trial   attorney,  he  was  very                                                                    
satisfied with the judges he had  dealt with.  He found them                                                                    
to be hard-working, ethical,  and professional. He expressed                                                                    
concerns that  the bill would potentially  insert previously                                                                    
non-existent political  undertones and that there  was not a                                                                    
need to change the constitutional council.                                                                                      
Mr. Peterson  informed the committee that  he conducted oral                                                                    
history  interviews  with  two   surviving  members  of  the                                                                    
constitutional  convention,  past Lieutenant  Governor  Jack                                                                    
Coghill and Vic Fisher. In  the interviews he focused on the                                                                    
judicial   portion  of   the   constitution  including   the                                                                    
selection process  of judges and  court administration.   He                                                                    
reported  that substantial  oral  history  was created  from                                                                    
interviews   at    Alaska's   50th   anniversary    of   the                                                                    
constitution.  He  referenced  the  University  of  Alaska's                                                                    
collection  of historical  interviews,  including some  with                                                                    
Judge  Tom Stewart,  who provided  extensive information  to                                                                    
the university and bar association  about judicial and court                                                                    
issues. He  relayed intent to  provide the committee  with a                                                                    
supplement to his testimony in the form of a letter.                                                                            
Mr.  Peterson went  on to  discuss his  interviews with  Mr.                                                                    
Coghill  and Mr.  Fisher. He  reported that  the aim  of the                                                                    
1955 constitutional convention was  to arrive at a framework                                                                    
that would pass  the test of time and to  create a valid and                                                                    
sound structure  for governing the state.  He furthered that                                                                    
in all  of the research  he had done regarding  the crafting                                                                    
of a new judicial system, merit  was the primary gage in the                                                                    
choosing  of judges  and any  political  influence would  be                                                                    
left  out of  the selection  process.   He relayed  that the                                                                    
balance of power was a  concern at the inception of Alaska's                                                                    
constitution and still was today.   He closed by reiterating                                                                    
his opposition to HJR 33.                                                                                                       
9:11:40 AM                                                                                                                    
DARREL  GARDNER,   SELF,  ANCHORAGE   (via  teleconference),                                                                    
testified in opposition to the  bill.  He introduced himself                                                                    
as a life-long  Alaskan, an attorney for over  30 years, the                                                                    
president  of   the  Alaska  chapter  of   the  Federal  Bar                                                                    
Association,  the president  of  the  Alaska Association  of                                                                    
Criminal   Defense   Lawyers,   a   night   circuit   lawyer                                                                    
representative  to the  judicial conference,  and a  current                                                                    
candidate  for a  seat  on  the board  of  governors of  the                                                                    
Alaska Bar Association for the  third judicial district.  He                                                                    
testified on  his own behalf.   He remarked that he  did not                                                                    
know a  single practicing attorney  who was in favor  of HJR                                                                    
33 and  that the current  structure of the  judicial council                                                                    
worked.    He claimed  there  was  no demonstrated  need  to                                                                    
change  the constitution  to add  additional members  or the                                                                    
way in  which the  council functioned.   He  speculated that                                                                    
the proposed legislation  to expand the size  of the council                                                                    
had  the potential  to politicize  and hamper  the council's                                                                    
selection   process.   He   suggested  that   the   proposed                                                                    
legislation  was short-sighted  and that,  overall, the  bar                                                                    
was satisfied with the judicial selection process.                                                                              
9:13:57 AM                                                                                                                    
NANCY MEADE,  GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT  SYSTEM, opposed                                                                    
HJR 33  on behalf of the  court system. She stated  that the                                                                    
court  system normally  remained neutral  except when  bills                                                                    
and resolutions directly impacted  its operation or when the                                                                    
administration   of   justice   was  threatened.   She   was                                                                    
specifically directed by the Alaska  Supreme Court to oppose                                                                    
the resolution. She relayed that  the court's mission was to                                                                    
provide the  citizens of Alaska  an impartial forum  for the                                                                    
resolution of  disputes.  She  emphasized that it  relied on                                                                    
the  judicial council  to screen  candidates for  judgeships                                                                    
and,   thereafter,  to   make   recommendations  about   the                                                                    
retention  of  sitting judges  for  the  benefit of  Alaskan                                                                    
voters. She opined that HJR  33 would disrupt a fine-working                                                                    
configuration of  three attorneys  and three  public members                                                                    
sitting  on the  council.  She explained  that the  judicial                                                                    
council  considered candidates  based on  qualifications and                                                                    
merit  by  both its  attorney  members  and public  members;                                                                    
attorney members weighing in  from a colleague's perspective                                                                    
and public  members evaluating  from a  citizen's viewpoint.                                                                    
She expressed  the court's concern that  without the current                                                                    
balance  of  power  in  place  members  would  change  their                                                                    
evaluation  criteria from  aptitude  to political  leanings.                                                                    
The court's other concern was  that with a clear majority of                                                                    
members  sharing  a  particular philosophy,  attorney  views                                                                    
might  be excluded  from consideration,  or  the quality  of                                                                    
applicants might  be compromised. She also  suggested that a                                                                    
judge might  potentially rule  on a  case in  alignment with                                                                    
the  governor  to  avoid  being   unseated  in  the  future.                                                                    
Ultimately, Alaska's  citizens would not feel  like they had                                                                    
a fair  and impartial decision  maker in front of  them. She                                                                    
asserted  that the  court system  currently  had 73  sitting                                                                    
judges from  every background imaginable  with a  wide range                                                                    
of experience.   She was attempting to dispel  any notion of                                                                    
council  member biases  based on  political  leanings.   She                                                                    
concluded  her testimony  reemphasizing  the court  system's                                                                    
opposition to the legislation.                                                                                                  
9:20:46 AM                                                                                                                    
MIKE COONS, SELF, PALMER  (via teleconference), testified in                                                                    
support of the legislation. He  stated that the testimony in                                                                    
the committee hearing was stacked  with opponents to HJR 33.                                                                    
He  contended  that the  Ninth  Circuit  District Court  was                                                                    
stacked with  the most liberal  judges in the  entire world.                                                                    
He suggested  that the Supreme  Court ruled  against freedom                                                                    
of  choice  in  education  and  for  the  Blaine  Amendment,                                                                    
continually  having judges  legislating from  the bench.  He                                                                    
commented that  he could  think of  several judges  over the                                                                    
years  that were  extremely liberal,  letting people  out on                                                                    
their own recognizance after they  had raped elderly people.                                                                    
He pointed  out the need  for a  judge that made  a judgment                                                                    
based  on  the constitution  not  on  his or  her  political                                                                    
leanings. He  mentioned that people misconstrued  the Second                                                                    
Amendment. He  wanted as many  solid citizens to sit  on the                                                                    
judicial council as  possible; people that wanted  to do the                                                                    
job, to  take care  of criminals,  and to  avoid legislating                                                                    
from the bench.  He restated his full support of HJR 33.                                                                        
9:24:19 AM                                                                                                                    
FRITZ  PETTYJOHN,  SELF,  CALIFORNIA  (via  teleconference),                                                                    
testified  in  support  of the  legislation.  He  noted  his                                                                    
qualifications as a prior  Alaska State House Representative                                                                    
and  Senator  and  a  40-year   member  of  the  Alaska  Bar                                                                    
Association. He explained that  legislators were not allowed                                                                    
to legislate  in areas of  laws which infringed  upon Second                                                                    
Amendment rights.   The purpose of the court  was to protect                                                                    
citizens from  the majority trampling on  minority rights as                                                                    
reflected in  the constitution.   He  asked what  extent the                                                                    
court  had in  deciding for  itself what  was or  was not  a                                                                    
constitutional   issue,  what   could   or   could  not   be                                                                    
legislated, or  what had to  be decided  by a court,  not by                                                                    
the representatives of  the people. He claimed  to have seen                                                                    
a consistent  tilt in the Alaska  Court System, specifically                                                                    
at the Alaska  Supreme Court level of a  very expansive view                                                                    
of its  own power and a  limited one of the  legislature. He                                                                    
believed that the  system imposed on the  citizens of Alaska                                                                    
has  taken the  judicial branch  of government  and expanded                                                                    
its power at the expense  of the legislature and the people.                                                                    
He  advocated  for  legislators  to  have  a  say  in  which                                                                    
qualified  names  went  before the  governor  for  judgeship                                                                    
consideration.  He  opined that  in  the  past the  judicial                                                                    
council   had  clearly   manipulated   the   outcome  of   a                                                                    
nomination. He believed that HJR  33 corrected a fundamental                                                                    
flaw in  Alaska's constitution that  puts lawyers  in charge                                                                    
of a  branch of government rather  than in the hands  of the                                                                    
people.  He argued  that the  legislation would  help fix  a                                                                    
broken system.                                                                                                                  
9:27:15 AM                                                                                                                    
MICHAEL  PAULEY, ALASKA  FAMILY COUNCIL,  SEATTLE WASHINGTON                                                                    
(via teleconference),  supported more public  involvement in                                                                    
the  process   in  which  the  State   of  Alaska  selected,                                                                    
evaluated, and retained its judges.  He affirmed the goal of                                                                    
HJR  33. He  noted the  wide variety  of members  serving on                                                                    
various judicial nominating  commissions around the country.                                                                    
From  the  perspective of  the  Alaska  Family Council,  the                                                                    
proposal of  adding three additional  public members  to the                                                                    
judicial council was  not out of the  ordinary in comparison                                                                    
to other states. He emphasized  the population of Alaska had                                                                    
at least  tripled from the  time of statehood and  the court                                                                    
system had grown  along with it. He  suggested that creating                                                                    
a  larger   judicial  council   would  be   appropriate.  He                                                                    
concluded  that there  should be  a  proper balance  between                                                                    
members  representing   the  bar  association   and  members                                                                    
representing  the general  public. He  did not  believe that                                                                    
the council  would be  out of  balance with  three attorneys                                                                    
and three public members. He  reported that the attorneys on                                                                    
the council were  selected by the board of  governors of the                                                                    
bar association, an entity  with 4,212 members, representing                                                                    
one  half of  1  percent  of the  population  of the  state.                                                                    
However, they get to choose  half the regular voting members                                                                    
of  the council.   The  three public  members were  there to                                                                    
represent  the  non-attorneys,  the other  731,000  Alaskans                                                                    
served by the court system.  He claimed that in the judicial                                                                    
council's current  form an enormous  amount of  power rested                                                                    
in the hands of attorneys  practicing law in front of judges                                                                    
rather than  in the hands of  the general public.   He noted                                                                    
that the chief  justice was a dues-paying member  of the bar                                                                    
association.  In reality, the  bar members had a majority of                                                                    
four of the seven seats of  the council.  He also emphasized                                                                    
that the bar  members were not appointed by  the governor or                                                                    
confirmed by the legislature.  In contrast, the non-attorney                                                                    
public members were required to  appear before the House and                                                                    
Senate Judiciary Committees for an interview process.                                                                           
Mr. Pauley  opined that the  way in which  Alaska's Judicial                                                                    
Council was structured was  different from other commissions                                                                    
and  government.  For  example,   physicians  on  the  state                                                                    
medical board  were appointed  by the  governor, not  by the                                                                    
Alaska State Medical Association,  and stood for legislative                                                                    
confirmation. He  reported that the same  process applied to                                                                    
the  Alaska  Board  of  Nursing  and  the  Alaska  Board  of                                                                    
Pharmacy. He referenced five examples  in the past two years                                                                    
where all three  public members of the council  voted yes to                                                                    
nominate a particular applicant  for a judicial vacancy, but                                                                    
all  of the  participating attorney  members voted  no.   In                                                                    
each  case,  the chief  justice  sided  with the  attorneys,                                                                    
defeating the  nominations and shortening the  list of names                                                                    
submitted  to the  governor. He  believed the  potential for                                                                    
the  chief  justice  to  influence  decisions  made  by  the                                                                    
council was  undeniable.   HJR 33  proposed to  increase the                                                                    
number  of voting  members to  nine, making  tie votes  more                                                                    
9:32:58 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.                                                                                       
Representative  Keller concluded  his  testimony by  stating                                                                    
that in  the process of hearing  HJR 33 in the  House he was                                                                    
baffled that  the issue was such  a big deal.   He cited the                                                                    
addition  of  three  non-attorney members  to  the  judicial                                                                    
council if  the legislation  passed.   He asserted  that the                                                                    
reaction  to the  bill was  amazing  and that  he had  never                                                                    
heard  of  a  problem  with a  non-attorney  member  on  the                                                                    
judicial   council.    He   mentioned    having   difficulty                                                                    
understanding   the  rationale   of   anyone  opposing   the                                                                    
legislation.  He   read  from   a  book   titled,  "Alaska's                                                                    
Constitutional  Convention"  (published   by  University  of                                                                    
Alaska)  which he  suggested  provided  proper context:"  He                                                                    
elaborated that  the review of  the convention  consisted of                                                                    
five  lawyers   and  two  laymen.  He   specified  that  the                                                                    
committee agreed  to follow the principles  suggested by the                                                                    
American Bar Association and to  adapt the Missouri Plan. He                                                                    
recounted  another section  of the  book where  a consultant                                                                    
talked  about some  of the  issues  that came  up. The  book                                                                    
stated  that  these  sections,  referring  to  the  judicial                                                                    
     go a  long way toward  withdrawing the  judicial branch                                                                    
     from  the  control of  the  people  of this  state  and                                                                    
     placing it under  that of the organized bar.   No state                                                                    
     constitution has ever  gone this far in  placing one of                                                                    
     the three coordinate branches  of the government beyond                                                                    
     the reach of democratic influence.   We feel that it is                                                                    
     in its desire  to preserve the integrity  of the courts                                                                    
     the convention has gone further  than necessary or safe                                                                    
     in putting them in the  hands of a private professional                                                                    
     group, however public spirited the  members may seem to                                                                    
Representative   Keller  went   on  to   explain  that   the                                                                    
consultants  suggested  a  number of  revisions  that  would                                                                    
democratize  the  proposed  system   by  providing  for  the                                                                    
legislative  confirmation  of  both  the  attorney  and  lay                                                                    
members  of  the  judicial council.  He  reported  that  the                                                                    
suggestions  were  not  accepted by  the  meeting  committee                                                                    
chairman  and  never  reached  the  convention  floor.    He                                                                    
reemphasized the  importance of allowing the  public to vote                                                                    
on the legislation.                                                                                                             
Co-Chair Stoltze made a  historical reference before setting                                                                    
the bill aside.                                                                                                                 
HJR  33  was  HEARD  and   HELD  in  committee  for  further                                                                    
9:38:29 AM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
9:43:08 AM                                                                                                                    
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 18                                                                                                 
     Proposing amendments  to the Constitution of  the State                                                                    
     of Alaska relating to the office of attorney general.                                                                      
9:43:21 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Stoltze  presented HJR 18. He  reported that Alaska                                                                    
was  one of  seven states  that did  not elect  its attorney                                                                    
general.   Instead, Alaska's attorney general  was appointed                                                                    
by  the governor.    He expressed  concern  that, under  the                                                                    
current  practice,  the people  of  Alaska  did not  have  a                                                                    
voice.  HJR  18  gave  Alaskans  a say  in  the  process  of                                                                    
electing  their state  attorney  general,  an official  that                                                                    
made opinions under the force of  the law.  He also asserted                                                                    
that there were no checks  and balances within the executive                                                                    
branch.  Alaska's  attorney  general  was  given  incredible                                                                    
powers working as the head of  the Department of Law and for                                                                    
the governor. He declared that it  was a stretch to refer to                                                                    
the attorney general as the  "people's" attorney general. He                                                                    
expressed confidence that if HJR  18 was brought to a public                                                                    
vote it  would be  strongly supported and  readily approved.                                                                    
In proposing  HJR 18  he surmised  that the  legislature had                                                                    
the   responsibility   of   practicing  due   diligence   in                                                                    
reviewing,  refining,  and  perfecting the  legislation.  He                                                                    
agreed with former  governor Bill Egan, one  of the founding                                                                    
founders of  the state, who  believed in a  strong executive                                                                    
branch.   Prior  to   attending  the   first  constitutional                                                                    
convention,  Territorial  Senator  Egan professed  that  the                                                                    
station of attorney general should be an elected position.                                                                      
Co-Chair  Stoltze pointed  out  that the  tenure of  elected                                                                    
attorney generals  in territorial  times far  surpassed that                                                                    
of  appointed  attorney  generals since  statehood,  another                                                                    
argument  in  support  of the  resolution.  Also,  he  noted                                                                    
members   of   the  constitutional   convention   expressing                                                                    
concerns  about  not  having enough  attorneys  to  run  for                                                                    
office. Today,  Alaska had  more than  4,000 members  of the                                                                    
bar. He  spoke of  his admiration  for former  Governor Egan                                                                    
and was glad they shared  the same opinion on the importance                                                                    
of a strong  executive branch. He hoped  for the committee's                                                                    
support to move the resolution forward.                                                                                         
9:51:55 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Austerman   stated  that  the  objective   was  to                                                                    
introduce  HJR 18;  public  testimony would  be  heard at  a                                                                    
later date.                                                                                                                     
HJR  18  was  HEARD  and   HELD  in  committee  for  further                                                                    
9:52:18 AM                                                                                                                    
At EASE                                                                                                                         
9:53:03 AM                                                                                                                    
HOUSE BILL NO. 220                                                                                                            
     "An  Act  repealing  the secondary  student  competency                                                                    
     examination  and  related requirements;  and  providing                                                                    
     for an effective date."                                                                                                    
9:53:14 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Stoltze  MOVED  to ADOPT  the  proposed  committee                                                                    
substitute  for HB  220, Work  Draft 28-LS0947\C,  (Mischel,                                                                    
3/17/14). Co-Chair Austerman OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                           
Co-Chair Stoltze  stated that the  CS responded  to concerns                                                                    
expressed by the House Finance Committee.                                                                                       
DANIEL   GEORGE,   STAFF,   REPRESENTATIVE   BILL   STOLTZE,                                                                    
explained the  changes in  the CS.  In Sections  6 and  7 on                                                                    
page  4  of the  previous  version  there was  a  transition                                                                    
period  where  students  could continue  to  take  the  High                                                                    
School  Qualifying  Graduation  Exam (HSQGE)  for  one  year                                                                    
following  its repeal.   He  noted that  the newest  version                                                                    
added  the language  from lines  25 through  the end  of the                                                                    
bill on page 5.  He read the section:                                                                                           
     RETROSPECTIVE ISSUANCE  OF A  HIGH SCHOOL  DIPLOMA. (a)                                                                    
     At the  request of a student  made by June 30,  2017, a                                                                    
     school district shall issue a  high school diploma to a                                                                    
     student  who  did not  receive  a  high school  diploma                                                                    
     because the student failed to  pass all or a portion of                                                                    
     the  secondary school  competency  examination but  who                                                                    
     received a  certificate of achievement under  former AS                                                                    
     14.03.075.  A  school  district  shall  mail  a  notice                                                                    
     consistent  with  this  section  to  each  student  who                                                                    
     qualifies  for  a diploma  under  this  section to  the                                                                    
     student's  last known  address. (b)  The Department  of                                                                    
     Education  and Early  Development shall  post a  notice                                                                    
     consistent  with  this   section  on  the  department's                                                                    
     Internet website with information  about how to request                                                                    
     a  high school  diploma. (c)  In this  section, "school                                                                    
     district" has the meaning given in AS 14.30.350. Sec.                                                                      
     7. This Act takes effect immediately under AS                                                                              
Mr. George concluded his presentation on HB 220.                                                                                
9:55:44 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Stoltze  asked for  the  bill  sponsor's staff  to                                                                    
address the committee.                                                                                                          
THOMAS   STUDLER,   STAFF,  REPRESENTATIVE   PETE   HIGGINS,                                                                    
reported that  Representative Higgins  had no  opposition to                                                                    
the new work draft.                                                                                                             
Vice-Chair  Neuman  asked why  the  effective  date was  not                                                                    
retroactive.  Mr. Studler  explained that  any student  that                                                                    
did not pass  the exam since its inception in  2004 would be                                                                    
able to  request a retrospective  issuance of a  high school                                                                    
9:57:39 AM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Gara  expressed   that  he  appreciated  and                                                                    
supported HB  220. He recalled  some studies showing  that 3                                                                    
to 6  percent of  school budgets were  spent on  teaching to                                                                    
the  exit  exam rather  than  to  curriculum.   He  asked  a                                                                    
similar  question to  Vice-Chair Neuman  regarding the  June                                                                    
30,  2017 request  deadline.  He wondered  why  it would  be                                                                    
necessary  to impose  a  deadline on  any  student that  had                                                                    
previously received a certificate of achievement.                                                                               
Mr. Studler responded  that it would be up to  the wisdom of                                                                    
the committee to make a change.                                                                                                 
Co-Chair  Stoltze surmised  that a  deadline of  three years                                                                    
was a  reasonable time period  for past students  to request                                                                    
their diploma. He  contended that a cutoff date  served as a                                                                    
motivator   and   affirmed   that   eliminating   the   test                                                                    
requirement saved  the state a significant  amount of money.                                                                    
He supported a  request deadline of 2017  and suggested that                                                                    
if there  was a  large group of  students still  looking for                                                                    
their diploma, the legislature could revisit the issue.                                                                         
10:02:04 AM                                                                                                                   
Representative  Guttenberg  noted  the  immediate  effective                                                                    
date.  He asked  how many  students without  a diploma  were                                                                    
eligible  to take  the HSGQE  and inquired  if they  were in                                                                    
Mr.  George   deferred  his  response  to   Michael  Hanley,                                                                    
Commissioner,    Department   of    Education   and    Early                                                                    
10:02:51 AM                                                                                                                   
MICHAEL  HANLEY, COMMISSIONER,  DEPARTMENT OF  EDUCATION AND                                                                    
EARLY DEVELOPMENT,  cited that,  since 2004,  2,968 students                                                                    
received a certificate of achievement  rather than a diploma                                                                    
because they  could not pass  the HSGQE.   Just over  600 of                                                                    
the 2,968 students  have retested and passed  the test since                                                                    
the  time of  their initial  exam.   Currently, about  2,300                                                                    
students would be  eligible to receive their  diploma if the                                                                    
legislation  passed.  He reported  that  48  percent of  the                                                                    
2,300   were  students   with  disabilities.   The  governor                                                                    
suggested  a three-year  transition as  one way  of removing                                                                    
the HSGQE. Ultimately, the  department supported the removal                                                                    
of the  HSGQE without reference to  the method.  One  way to                                                                    
implement  the  legislation  would   be  to  make  the  bill                                                                    
retroactive, which  he supported.   He mentioned  that there                                                                    
was an  $8,000 component  in the  fiscal note  that provided                                                                    
for  the  Department  of  Education  and  Early  Development                                                                    
(DEED) to  help school  districts notify the  2,300 students                                                                    
about the change in law.                                                                                                        
Representative  Wilson asked  the commissioner  how many  of                                                                    
the 2,300 students received  their General Education Diploma                                                                    
10:05:12 AM                                                                                                                   
Commissioner  Hanley  responded  that  he  did  not  have  a                                                                    
number.   He also  informed the committee  that the  GED was                                                                    
conducted  by   the  Department   of  Labor   and  Workforce                                                                    
Development and was separate from a high school diploma.                                                                        
Representative  Wilson asked  for  clarification  as to  the                                                                    
maximum  number  of   students  that  could  retrospectively                                                                    
request their  diploma. Commissioner Hanley stated  that the                                                                    
maximum  number  of  students included  the  current  year's                                                                    
cohorts plus 2,300 past students.                                                                                               
Representative  Wilson  again requested  clarification  that                                                                    
the  current  high  school  seniors  would  be  eligible  to                                                                    
receive their diploma if they completed their coursework.                                                                       
Commissioner  Hanley  replied  that  current  seniors  would                                                                    
still  be   required  to  pass   the  HSGQE  prior   to  the                                                                    
legislation becoming  law.  However,  students that  did not                                                                    
pass  the test  and only  had a  certificate of  achievement                                                                    
would be  able to request  their diploma after the  law took                                                                    
10:06:56 AM                                                                                                                   
Representative Wilson wanted  additional clarification about                                                                    
whether or not  students would receive their  diploma if the                                                                    
law took  effect prior  to graduation  of the  current year.                                                                    
She also  wanted confirmation that  the current  high school                                                                    
seniors  were   not  included  in   the  2,300   number  the                                                                    
commissioner provided.                                                                                                          
Commissioner  Hanley  verified  that current  seniors  would                                                                    
receive their diplomas if the  law became effective prior to                                                                    
graduation.  He  also  affirmed   that  the  current  year's                                                                    
cohorts  were not  a part  of the  2,300 past  students that                                                                    
would be eligible to receive a diploma under HB 220.                                                                            
10:07:57 AM                                                                                                                   
Representative  Munoz supported  the legislation.  She asked                                                                    
for details  regarding communication  to past  students with                                                                    
attendance    certificates.    Specifically,   she    wanted                                                                    
clarification about whether  it would be the  high school or                                                                    
the department that  would be following up  with and issuing                                                                    
diplomas to  students.  She  also asked how DEED  would work                                                                    
with  high schools  to get  the  message out  to the  public                                                                    
about the law, if it passed.                                                                                                    
Commissioner  Hanley  reported   that  high  schools  issued                                                                    
diplomas.  The  department   would  partner  along-side  the                                                                    
school districts  to get word  out to the public,  hence the                                                                    
$8  thousand   fiscal  note.   The  fiscal   note  addressed                                                                    
mailings, public service  announcements, and postings around                                                                    
the state.                                                                                                                      
Representative  Munoz  suggested  that legislators  make  an                                                                    
announcement via their  newsletter in order to  get the word                                                                    
out to constituents if and once the legislation passed.                                                                         
Commissioner Hanley agreed emphatically.                                                                                        
10:09:43 AM                                                                                                                   
Vice-Chair  Neuman  was  concerned  with  eligible  military                                                                    
personnel being able to meet  a request deadline of 2017. He                                                                    
did not want  to see service members miss  an opportunity to                                                                    
receive  a  diploma because  of  an  extended tour  of  duty                                                                    
overseas or because of an accessibility issue.                                                                                  
Commissioner Hanley responded that  the bill did not specify                                                                    
that  a student  would have  to physically  return to  their                                                                    
high school to make a  request.  Past students could contact                                                                    
their  school  remotely.   He  furthered  that students  who                                                                    
received a  certificate of completion  but wanted  a diploma                                                                    
were most likely making arrangements  to take the HSGQE and,                                                                    
therefore,  would have  access to  any change  in graduation                                                                    
requirements.  He was  not as  concerned about  students who                                                                    
were no longer pursuing their diploma after three years.                                                                        
Vice-Chair  Neuman  opposed   having  a  three-year  request                                                                    
10:12:01 AM                                                                                                                   
Representative Guttenberg  asked why  anyone would  take the                                                                    
HSGQE if it was apparent that the legislation would pass.                                                                       
Commissioner  Hanley reported  that  the test  was given  in                                                                    
October and  April of each  year.   In the current  year the                                                                    
test  would  be given  in  April  prior to  the  legislation                                                                    
10:12:38 AM                                                                                                                   
Representative  Thompson  clarified   that  members  of  the                                                                    
military were required  to have a diploma.  He was concerned                                                                    
that civilian contractors, who wanted  to join the military,                                                                    
would be ineligible if they missed a cutoff date.                                                                               
Co-Chair  Stoltze  suggested   removing  the  objection  and                                                                    
adopting the CS in order to offer any changes.                                                                                  
Co-Chair Austerman  WITHDREW his  OBJECTION. There  being NO                                                                    
further OBJECTION, Work Draft 28-LS0947\C was ADOPTED.                                                                          
Representative  Gara agreed  with Representative  Neuman and                                                                    
Representative  Thompson on  their  point  about imposing  a                                                                    
deadline.  He wanted  to  know what  grade  level the  HSGQE                                                                    
tested at and how much  of teachers' time was spent teaching                                                                    
to the exam.                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Austerman  asked if Representative  Gara's question                                                                    
was directly related.                                                                                                           
Co-Chair Stoltze noted the savings  of $1.4 million with the                                                                    
elimination of  the HSGQE. He  directed the  commissioner to                                                                    
provide  information  about  the practicality  of  having  a                                                                    
deadline and any other fiscal issues.                                                                                           
10:15:39 AM                                                                                                                   
Commissioner  Hanley  stated  that  the fiscal  note  was  a                                                                    
decrement of $2.75 million.                                                                                                     
Co-Chair  Stoltze  wanted  further clarification  about  the                                                                    
$2.75  million figure  because of  conflicting reports  from                                                                    
Mr. Morse about the state's obligations to the contractor.                                                                      
Commissioner Hanley  replied that the only  difference was a                                                                    
very small  increment of $8  thousand from the  current year                                                                    
to the  next.  The  $8 thousand was designated  for mailings                                                                    
and disseminating information to the public.                                                                                    
10:16:34 AM                                                                                                                   
Representative  Thompson MOVED  to  ADOPT  Amendment 1,  28-                                                                    
LS0947\N.I, Mischel, 2/26/14 (copy on file):                                                                                    
     Page 1, line 2, following "requirements;":                                                                                 
          Insert "relating to an annual performance report                                                                      
     to the legislature by the Department of Education and                                                                      
     Early Development;"                                                                                                        
     Page 1, line 6, following "year":                                                                                          
          Insert "by electronic means"                                                                                        
Co-Chair Austerman OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                     
Representative   Thompson   detailed  the   amendment.   The                                                                    
amendment  changed  the  reporting   format  from  paper  to                                                                    
electronic means.   The amendment  helped to reduce  the use                                                                    
of paper.                                                                                                                       
Co-Chair   Stoltze   supported   Amendment   1   but   asked                                                                    
Representative Thompson  to make  it a  conceptual amendment                                                                    
to conform to the new CS.                                                                                                       
Representative  Thompson  MOVED  that  his  amendment  be  a                                                                    
conceptual amendment.                                                                                                           
Co-Chair Austerman  WITHDREW his  OBJECTION. There  being NO                                                                    
further  OBJECTION,  it  was so  ordered.  Amendment  1  was                                                                    
10:19:25 AM                                                                                                                   
Representative  Gara MOVED  to  ADOPT Amendment  2 (copy  on                                                                    
     Page 4, line 26:                                                                                                           
          Delete "made by June 30, 2017"                                                                                        
Co-Chair Austerman OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                     
Representative Gara  described the amendment.  The amendment                                                                    
would allow students  to apply for a diploma at  any time if                                                                    
they  completed their  course requirements.  He did  not see                                                                    
any  reason   to  treat  people   who  completed   the  same                                                                    
coursework differently  due to  a diploma  request deadline.                                                                    
He suggested removing the cutoff date entirely.                                                                                 
Representative  Wilson asked  if  there  was an  established                                                                    
period  of time  school  districts were  required to  retain                                                                    
their records.   She questioned  whether it was  the student                                                                    
or the  school district  that was responsible  for verifying                                                                    
graduation qualifications.                                                                                                      
Commissioner   Hanley  answered   that   records  would   be                                                                    
available and  that districts would  be mailing  out notices                                                                    
to students who received their certificate of achievement.                                                                      
Representative  Wilson asked  whether  a  high school  would                                                                    
have the  ability to verify  a student's eligibility  if the                                                                    
student requested a diploma at some point in the future.                                                                        
Commissioner   Hanley  confirmed   that  records   would  be                                                                    
10:22:00 AM                                                                                                                   
Representative Edgmon asked the  commissioner to explain the                                                                    
counterpoint to having a deadline in place.                                                                                     
Commissioner  Hanley  replied   that  the  deadline  allowed                                                                    
students  to  either  pass  the HSGQE  now  or  request  the                                                                    
issuance of their diploma within  three years. He didn't see                                                                    
the applicability  of someone making  a request at 30  or 40                                                                    
years of age.                                                                                                                   
10:22:51 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair Stoltze disputed that  the amendment was a punitive                                                                    
measure. He  believed that people respond  well to deadlines                                                                    
and that they served as  good motivators. He emphasized that                                                                    
he wanted to make sure  kids get their diplomas, deadline or                                                                    
no deadline.  He had no objection to the amendment.                                                                             
Co-Chair Austerman  WITHDREW his  OBJECTION. There  being NO                                                                    
further  OBJECTION,  it  was so  ordered.  Amendment  2  was                                                                    
10:24:36 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair Austerman asked for any objections.                                                                                    
Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED  to REPORT CSHB 220  (FIN) as amended                                                                    
out  of committee  with individual  recommendations and  the                                                                    
attached fiscal notes.                                                                                                          
There  being NO  OBJECTION,  CSHB 220  was  REPORTED out  of                                                                    
committee with a  "do pass" recommendation and  with one new                                                                    
fiscal  impact note  from the  Department  of Education  and                                                                    
Early Development.                                                                                                              
10:25:35 AM                                                                                                                   
The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 a.m.                                                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
CSHJR 33 (JUD) Explanation of Changes.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 33
CSHJR 33 (JUD) Sectional Analysis.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 33
CSHJR 33 (JUD) Sponsor Statement.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 33
CSHJR 33 (JUD) Support Document~AK Judicial Council Historic Make Up.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 33
HJR 33 Document~Alaska Judicial Council Constitutional Duties.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 33
HJR 33 Document~Current Judicial Council Members.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 33
HJR 33 Document~Detailed Overview of Judicial Council Votes.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 33
HJR 33 Document~Judicial Council Voting Statistics.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 33
HJR 33 Document~Pie Chart on Judicial Council Votes.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 33
HJR 33 Document~Judicial Nomination Votes Over Time.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 33
HJR 33 Letters of Support-Opposition.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 33
HJR 33 Support Document~AK Constitution, Article IV.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 33
HJR 33 Support Document~AK Judicial Council Bylaws.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 33
HJR 33 Support Document~Attorney-Public Tie Votes.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 33
HJR 33 Support Document~Federalist Society, Judicial Selection in State High Courts Maps.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 33
HJR 33 Support Document~Historical Roster of AJC Members.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 33
HJR 18 2014 Statewide Elected Offices by State.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 18
HJR 18 AK Prpopsed Constitutional Amendments.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 18
HJR 18 AK Constitutional Convention Attorney General Highlights.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 18
HJR 18 Alaska Attorney General History.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 18
HJR 18 Current Governors and Attorneys General.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 18
HJR 18 History of Attorneys General of Alaska.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 18
HJR 18 How states have selected ag.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 18
HJR 18 Qualification to be attorney general.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 18
HJR 18 Removal of an Attorney General.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 18
HJR 18 Sponsor statement.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 18
HJR 18 Statute references.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 18
HB 220 DEED Response.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HB 220
Testimony in Support HJR 33 Larry Wood.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 33
HB 220 Amendment 2 Gara.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HB 220
Ak Jud Cncl HJR33 Info - Mar 20.pdf HFIN 3/20/2014 8:30:00 AM
HJR 33