04/06/2015 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB123 | |
| SB30 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 154 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 147 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 6, 2015
1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Kurt Olson (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 123
"An Act establishing the Marijuana Control Board; relating to
the powers and duties of the Marijuana Control Board; relating
to the appointment, removal, and duties of the director of the
Marijuana Control Board; relating to the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 30(FIN)
"An Act relating to controlled substances; relating to
marijuana; relating to crimes and offenses related to marijuana
and the use of marijuana; relating to open marijuana containers;
relating to established villages and local options; relating to
delinquent minors; making conforming amendments; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 123
SHORT TITLE: ESTABLISH MARIJUANA CONTROL BOARD
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/23/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/23/15 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
03/04/15 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/04/15 (H) Heard & Held
03/04/15 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/11/15 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/11/15 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/15 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/16/15 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/16/15 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/15 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/20/15 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/20/15 (H) Heard & Held
03/20/15 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/23/15 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/23/15 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/23/15 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/23/15 (H) Heard & Held
03/23/15 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/27/15 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/27/15 (H) Moved CSHB 123(L&C) Out of Committee
03/27/15 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/30/15 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) 1DP 3NR 3AM
03/30/15 (H) DP: OLSON
03/30/15 (H) NR: TILTON, HUGHES, KITO
03/30/15 (H) AM: LEDOUX, JOSEPHSON, COLVER
03/30/15 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/30/15 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/15 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/03/15 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/03/15 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/06/15 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 30
SHORT TITLE: MARIJUANA REG;CONT. SUBST;CRIMES;DEFENSES
SPONSOR(s): JUDICIARY
01/23/15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/15 (S) JUD, FIN
01/26/15 (S) JUD AT 1:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/26/15 (S) Heard & Held
01/26/15 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
01/28/15 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/28/15 (H) -- Companion Bill --
01/30/15 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
01/30/15 (S) -- Meeting Postponed to Monday 2/2/2015
--
02/02/15 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/02/15 (S) -- Rescheduled from 01/30/15 --
02/05/15 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
02/05/15 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
02/06/15 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/06/15 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/09/15 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/09/15 (S) Heard & Held
02/09/15 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/11/15 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/11/15 (S) Heard & Held
02/11/15 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/13/15 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/13/15 (S) Heard & Held
02/13/15 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/16/15 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/16/15 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/18/15 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/18/15 (S) Heard & Held
02/18/15 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/20/15 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/20/15 (S) Moved CSSB 30(JUD) Out of Committee
02/20/15 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/23/15 (S) JUD RPT CS 1DP 3AM NEW TITLE
02/23/15 (S) DP: MCGUIRE
02/23/15 (S) AM: COSTELLO, COGHILL, MICCICHE
02/24/15 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
02/24/15 (S) Heard & Held
02/24/15 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/03/15 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/03/15 (S) Heard & Held
03/03/15 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/05/15 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/05/15 (S) Heard & Held
03/05/15 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/06/15 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/06/15 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/09/15 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/09/15 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/09/15 (S) FIN AT 1:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/09/15 (S) Departments: Environmental Conservation
and
03/10/15 (S) FIN AT 1:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/10/15 (S) Departments: Environmental Conservation
and
03/11/15 (S) FIN AT 1:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/11/15 (S) -- Public Testimony --
03/12/15 (S) FIN AT 1:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/12/15 (S) Heard & Held
03/12/15 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/13/15 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/13/15 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/13/15 (S) FIN AT 1:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/13/15 (S) Heard & Held
03/13/15 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/14/15 (S) FIN AT 10:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/14/15 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/18/15 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/18/15 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/23/15 (S) FIN RPT CS 1DP 3NR 3AM NEW TITLE
03/23/15 (S) DP: MACKINNON
03/23/15 (S) NR: BISHOP, DUNLEAVY, HOFFMAN
03/23/15 (S) AM: KELLY, MICCICHE, OLSON
03/23/15 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/23/15 (S) Moved CSSB 30(FIN) Out of Committee
03/23/15 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/25/15 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED Y16 N4
03/30/15 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/30/15 (S) VERSION: CSSB 30(FIN)
03/31/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/31/15 (H) JUD, FIN
04/06/15 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
MICAELA FOWLER, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
(DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSHB 123, presented
changes within the committee substitute and answered questions.
CYNTHIA FRANKLIN, Director
Alcohol Beverage Control Board
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on CSHB 123 offered
support for Version N.
RACHELLE YEUNG, Legislative Analyst
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony during the hearing on
CSHB 123.
BRUCE SCHULTE
Coalition for Responsible Cannabis Legislation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony regarding CSHB 123.
HARRIET MILKS, Assistant Attorney General
Commercial and Fair Business Section
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on CSHB 123, answered
questions.
AMY SALTZMAN, Staff
Senator Lesil McGuire
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing for SB 30, explained the
status of the bill.
JORDAN SHILLING, Staff
Senator John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 30, explained
Version T.
CYNTHIA FRANKLIN, Director
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC Board)
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 30, answered
questions.
DOLLYNDA PHELPS
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing of SB 30.
JASON HOWARD
Soldatna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on SB 30, offered his
concerns.
RACHELLE YEUNG
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing of SB 30.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:33:02 PM
CHAIR GABRIELLE LEDOUX called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. Representatives Keller,
Lynn, Claman, and LeDoux were present at the call to order.
Representatives Gruenberg, Foster, and Millett arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
1:33:48 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX clarified that there are two versions of SB 30 in
that version "T" came out of the Senate and is much different
from version "Q" which came out of Senate Judiciary. She
explained that while there are many similarities between the two
versions, they exemplify two very different strategies for
legalization. She advised that during this meeting the members
will be briefed on the two different roads that these two
different versions of SB 30 travel, their implications, and the
options before this committee assuming there is enough time
after HB 123.
HB 123-ESTABLISH MARIJUANA CONTROL BOARD
1:34:51 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 123, "An Act establishing the Marijuana Control
Board; relating to the powers and duties of the Marijuana
Control Board; relating to the appointment, removal, and duties
of the director of the Marijuana Control Board; relating to the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; and providing for an effective
date."
1:35:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt CSHB 123, version 29-
GH1110\N, Martin, 4/3/15 as the working document. There being
no objection, version "N" was before the committee.
1:35:36 PM
MICAELA FOWLER, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
(DCCED), said that version N represents several changes from the
prior version. She explained that Sec. 3 has been amended to
clarify and put into statute the intent that the Alcohol
Beverage Control Board (ABC Board) and the Marijuana Control
Board would meet right after each other in sharing staff. Sec.
7, is a new section which places the Marijuana Control Board on
a list of entities whose hearings are conducted by the Office of
Administrative Hearings. Sec. 9, is the transition language of
which is the most substantive change in this version in that it
changes what is considered experience for members of the
marijuana industry during the initial formation of the board.
Previously, the bill required that two members of the alcohol
industry serve the initial board term. She explained that in
version N, it is two members who have experience in the
marijuana industry obtained through lawful participation in the
marijuana industry, or participation in an academic or advocacy
role relating to the marijuana industry.
1:38:22 PM
CYNTHIA FRANKLIN, Director, Alcohol Beverage Control Board,
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development,
said the ABC Board supports the version going forward as Ms.
Fowler indicated, and she does not have anything to add to prior
testimony.
1:39:25 PM
RACHELLE YEUNG, Legislative Analyst, Marijuana Policy Project,
said she is speaking on behalf of the Marijuana Policy Project
and the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol. She opined
that the current committee substitute is a much better version
than previously and offered a suggestion regarding the
composition of the potential board members. She said the
concern is to ensure that people with the most relevant
expertise not be excluded, and that members of the board
implementing this law actually do support the law passed by the
voters. She pointed out that within the version it appears that
persons with only one year of experience in either of those
professions would qualify, while a person retired from a decades
long career in either of those fields, or has moved their career
to a private university or other non-profit public sector may
not.
MS. YEUNG responded to Representative Gruenberg that she is
referring to Sec. 2, [AS 17.38.080] page 2, lines 15-16, which
read:
(1) one person from the public safety sector;
(2) one person from the public health sector;
MS. YEUNG explained that it initially lays out the composition
of the board, one person from the public safety sector, and one
person from the public health sector. Her recommendation is
that those two positions allow someone who is a former public
health or public safety official to apply.
1:43:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to [Sec. 9], page 7, lines 2-
5, which read:
(b) Notwithstanding AS 17.38.080(b)(4) and (5), the
governor, in making the initial appointments to the
Marijuana Control Board, shall appoint two persons
with experience in the marijuana industry obtained
through lawful participation in the marijuana industry
or participation in an academic or advocacy role
relating to the marijuana industry.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that the above language would
clarify the fact that the person could be in the industry now or
have experience in it. He said that the intent is to allow
anyone with experience.
1:44:11 PM
MS. YEUNG pointed to Sec. 2, [AS 17.38.080] page 3, lines 14-20,
which read:
(4) "public health sector" means a state,
federal, or local entity that works to ensure the
health and safety of persons and communities through
education, policymaking, treatment and prevention of
injury and disease, and promotion of wellness;
(5) "public safety sector" means a state,
federal, or local law enforcement authority that
provides for the welfare and protection of the general
public through the enforcement of applicable laws;
MS. YEUNG recommended that the board members not be selected
from a professional involved in a federal law enforcement
capacity or a federal public safety capacity given that all of
the conduct the board will write laws for are illegal under
federal law. She recommended that all board members be
committed to safely implementing the initiative given that the
board will be responsible for implementing this law. She
expressed that it is important all members of the board actually
support the initiative or are committed to regulating and taxing
marijuana as the voters intended. She submitted that allowing
the possible inclusion of hostile board members who could favor
unlawful delays which would likely lead to litigation and
reduced faith in the government.
1:47:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to her last comment and
surmised that she prefers a provision in the law that these
board members support the law or support the concept of
legalizing marijuana.
MS. YEUNG clarified that she meant that the person appointed to
serve on the board supports the implementation of the law even
if they do not support the legalization themselves.
1:48:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked whether Ms. Yeung would also like
federal taken out of the definition for public health sector.
MS. YEUNG answered "That is correct." She then added to her
response to Representative Gruenberg that if the bill were not
to explicitly state that persons serving on this board support
the initiative, that they be required to state their support in
response to a question on the application form.
1:49:11 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX related that she understands Ms. Yeung
recommendation, but on the other hand it is as though Ms. Yeung
is requiring a loyal oath. She opined that they do not ask
people, or put it into statute, that someone serving on a board
must be in favor of something. She described [the action] as
implied that a person does their best to fulfill the duties of
the board.
1:49:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT expressed that she could not perceive
someone applying for a board position and vehemently oppose the
position of the board. She surmised that a person wishes to
serve on a board because they desire to see that board
implemented in a correct manner.
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that the board is subject to
legislative approval so someone along the line will ask the
question or it would come out if someone was attempting to join
the board because their intention was to railroad it.
1:50:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that Chair LeDoux's comments
might also go to the issue of deleting the word "federal"
because a federal person would not be appointed if they were
basically opposed. He said he hesitates to delete federal
because SB 30 will be on the books for a while and the federal
law may be modified.
1:51:31 PM
BRUCE SCHULTE, Coalition for Responsible Cannabis Legislation,
referred to [Sec. 3, AS 17.38.084] page 4, lines 15-16, which
read:
(a) The board shall control the cultivation,
manufacture, possession, and sale of marijuana in the
state.
MR. SCHULTE remarked that the word "control" could be more
appropriately replaced with the word "regulate." He further
remarked that the word "possession" might be stricken from the
sentence entirely because the board is actually charged with the
regulation of cultivation, manufacture, and sale of marijuana
and not personal possession. He stated that personal possession
is dealt with under statute with the passage of the initiative.
1:54:19 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
further wished to testify.
1:54:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to [Sec. 3, AS 17.38.084],
page 4, lines 18-19, which read:
(b) The board shall
(1) propose and adopt regulations;
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the adoption of
regulations would be under the Administrative Procedures Act.
MS. FOWLER replied "Yes."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked where in the bill it is
specifically listed.
1:55:58 PM
HARRIET MILKS, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial and Fair
Business Section, Department of Law (DOL), opined that the
language is in the initiative and [Sec. 10], on page 7, lines
12-15, which read:
(b) The Marijuana Control Board, established
under AS 17.38.080, as repealed and reenacted by sec.
2 of this Act, may adopt regulations necessary to
implement the changes made by this Act. The
regulations take effect under AS 44.62 (Administrative
Procedures Act), but not before the effective date of
this Act.
1:56:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented that if the board is going to
operate under the Administrative Procedures Act it should not
just be in a transitional section as it has to be put in the
body of the bill in permanent law.
MS. FOWLER noted that is a legitimate concern and could not see
any reason it could not happen.
1:57:03 PM
MS. FRANKLIN interjected that AS 17.38.090(a)(1) within the
voter's initiative provides that all of the regulations are
subject to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures
Act.
1:57:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred back to the discussion with Mr.
Schulte regarding page 4, lines 15-16, and asked whether Ms.
Milks had a problem with changing "control" to "regulate" and
deleting "possession."
1:58:03 PM
MS. MILKS replied that the language, including the word
"control" comes from Title 4, and it is not absolutely necessary
that the word be "control." She explained that elsewhere in the
initiative, and in this bill, it is clear that the Marijuana
Control Board would regulate marijuana. As to possession, she
remarked, there could be circumstances where possession of
marijuana would be inconsistent with the marijuana laws
currently being drafted, but certainly some possession is
protected under the Alaska State Constitution and under case law
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT argued that possession of marijuana would
not be something a board would be concerned with, as that would
be under the Department of Law or Department of Public Safety.
She questioned why marijuana would be regulated under a
possession issue when it would be under the Department of Public
Safety to ticket or regulate.
1:59:43 PM
MS. MILKS responded that it depends upon the scope of the
regulation that is anticipated for the Marijuana Control Board.
In the event the Marijuana Control Board is anticipated to have
enforcement powers, it could conceivably regulate certain
circumstances of possession. For example, she pointed out,
there are circumstance where the board would regulate more than
a certain number of plants in a person's possession, or
possessing marijuana while transporting it from a manufacturer
to a retail establishment, or a cultivator to a producer.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT related that she has an issue because the
board is not the Department of Public Safety, therefore, it
shouldn't be ticketing on possession issues and that according
to the initiative the board is to control the manufacture and
sale of marijuana, not the possession. She highlighted that if
the board had a problem with possession wouldn't it call the
Department of Public Safety who could enforce it. She asked
whether the bill is giving powers of enforcement and whether the
board would now be monitoring possession. In that regard, she
noted, there would be two types of enforcement through the
Department of Public Safety law and through the Marijuana
Control Board.
2:01:10 PM
MS. MILKS referred to [Sec. 3, AS 17.38.085, Enforcement
powers], page 5, lines 16-23, which read:
The director and the persons employed for the
administration and enforcement of the chapter may,
with the concurrence of the commissioner of public
safety, exercise the powers of peace officers when
those powers are specifically granted by the board.
Powers granted by the board under this section may be
exercised only when necessary for the enforcement of
the criminally punishable provisions of this chapter,
other criminal statutes relating to substances or
activities regulated or permitted under this chapter,
regulations of the board, and other criminally
punishable laws and regulations relating to marijuana.
MS. MILKS said this paragraph gives certain enforcement powers
to the Marijuana Control Board.
2:01:45 PM
MS. FRANKLIN responded to Representative Millett that the
language reflects the direct copy of language the ABC Board has
regarding control of alcohol. The ABC Board does control the
possession of alcohol because if the board is limited to
controlling only those individuals who have licenses then the
board's authority has been taken away to shut down commercial
enterprises without licenses. With regard to marijuana, it is
important when thinking about the term possession in that there
is a distinction between personal possession, which is in AS
17.38.020, and what the voters intended with regard to the
sanctity of personal possession of marijuana. She explained
that in this case the discussion is in a commercial context
where someone opens a commercial marijuana enterprise without
following the rules, without getting a license of which there
are already three examples of facilities in the state. She
described the situation that without enforcement authority this
board is unable to act on something that it was clearly expected
to act on. She further described that when a business
advertises it is delivering marijuana the ABC Board gets the
call to shut that place down because the individuals who intend
to apply for licenses want to see everyone on a level playing
field. She opined that it is very important in the alcohol and
marijuana industry that the board have that enforcement
authority. She stated that separate enforcement really doesn't
work in real life as the ABC Board has five officers statewide,
and is proposed to be eight officers statewide with the addition
of this substance. She noted that the board works with local
law enforcement to ascertain that everyone operating in a
commercial context is regulated, is subject to the rules, and
has a license. She reiterated that should the legislature
determine that the board only has authority over licensed
business it completely does away with the ability of the board
to shut down anyone who tries to sell without a license. She
further reiterated that in this case, possession is commercial
possession, and the language is a duplication of the type of
control the ABC Board has over alcohol.
2:05:26 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether the businesses would be shut down
when someone calls law enforcement and everyone is arrested.
MS. FRANKLIN said (indisc.) where in the state this
establishment is located and its priorities. She described the
situation as frustrating because law enforcement then has
confusion about what they are and are not allowed to do. She
emphasized that the board and the board's enforcement officers
are supposedly the de facto experts of what is and isn't allowed
whether it be around alcohol or marijuana. She said she finds
herself advising local law enforcement officers or troopers that
certain people need to be shut down because the board does not
have the ability to do it themselves. On those occasions, it
depends upon that law enforcement agency's priorities as many
times their priorities are shootings, stabbings, rapes, and
murders. In that regard, if the establishment dealing in
marijuana doesn't rise high enough on their priority list ...
why not get the kind of action the state needs in the time frame
needed on an establishment like that.
2:07:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked that absent a decriminalization
piece of legislation, how would Ms. Franklin regulate from a
board if there are no possession limits, plants limits, and
anything set in stone ... how does the board go forward until
the legislature gets to a point next session where there is a
decriminalization bill.
2:07:55 PM
MS. FRANKLIN answered that in the event there is not a Marijuana
Control Board, it would default to the ABC Board and it would
use the rules currently existing in Title 4, in terms of
enforcement authorities and powers. AS 17.38 does provides some
guidance regarding a personal grow versus a commercial grow.
She explained that the board has been using current case law to
interpret the law the courts have generated around what
constitutes possession, joint possession, and constructive
possession. She related that the ABC Board would like to see
the legislature act, but the board will take the framework of
the initiative and move forward as best they can until next
session.
2:09:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked whether the ABC Board can arrest
people.
MS. FRANKLIN responded that the ABC Board has police officers
who hold special commissions from the commissioner of public
safety and have the ability to make arrests. She highlighted
that their enforcement ability is in Title 4, AS 04.06.110,
which limits them to enforcing rules around alcohol,
prostitution, and gambling as they relate to alcohol. She noted
there is a section for other criminally punishable provisions.
In the event no legislation is forthcoming, the ABC Board will
work with the Department of Public Safety, regarding the
commissions, to ascertain that it has authority to regulate the
substance in the manner the voters intended, as set forth in AS
17.38, she advised.
2:10:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER referred to [Sec. 2, AS 17.38.080], page
2, lines 30-31, which read:
(e) The rural member of the board shall reside or
have resided in a rural area for not fewer than 180
days within the five years preceding appointment.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER said it appears to him that a person could
have spent six months in a prior five years and not six months
in each of the prior five years.
MS. MILKS responded that his reading was correct as it would be
six months within the total period of five years preceding
appointment.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER noted that the above issue is an area of
concern for him. He referred to [Sec. 2, AS 17.38.080], page 3,
lines 21-22, which read:
(6) "rural area" means a community with a
population of 6,000 or less as determined under AS
29.60860(c).
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER extended that Bethel, Alaska has a
population of 6,080, and it is very much a rural area and
suggested pumping it up a bit.
2:12:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to page 4, line 15, "The board
shall control the cultivation, manufacture ..." and said he
understands "control" is in the ABC Board statute and questioned
whether there a problem changing the word to "regulate."
MS. MILKS explained that the word "control" here certainly
encompasses regulate. She remarked that in the event
enforcement powers are given to the board as something beyond
just regulate, it would have the ability to go in and say "we
are shutting you down, we're taking your marijuana plants, or
we're impounding them, or whatever the response is." She
expressed that control is a broader range of response than just
regulate.
2:13:10 PM
MS. FRANKLIN commented that the voters decided that should a
separate board be created it would be called the Marijuana
Control Board, and she believes it is disingenuous to say it
didn't mean control.
2:13:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to an earlier discussion
regarding enforcement powers under AS 17.38.085, page 5, [lines
16-23] and asked whether there should be a provision that before
the employees of the board exercise the duties of peace officers
that they are trained and certified in some manner. He asked
whether there should be authorization or a requirement for
training and certification.
MS. FRANKLIN answered that currently the requirement that those
employees are peace officers is in their job description. The
minimum qualifications for those jobs are written so that they
are police officers, and then they receive a commission from the
Department of Public Safety. She opined that there are a couple
of safeguards in place currently that protect against the idea
of the department just hiring someone without experience or
qualification and putting them into this enforcement position.
The applicants must meet the minimum qualifications under the
administrations requirement for getting the job, and then the
commissioner of public safety has an additional opportunity to
review their qualification, she explained. She highlighted that
should the commissioner of public safety decline to commission a
person then the ABC Board would not have the individual in that
job. She noted that historically they have employed these
officers over the years under the same language in Title 4, and
never had an issue with individuals not being qualified for that
commission.
2:16:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG described his question as technical as
to whether language had to be put into a statute, but it appears
that for the ABC Board this language is sufficient.
MS. FRANKLIN responded "Correct."
2:16:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that some of the terms
commented on are due to the fact that Title 4, alcohol control
statutes were written many years ago when the drafting style was
possibly a bit looser. He opined that there may be a revision
of those laws and that possibly as the phraseology is updated,
that conforming amendments are provided in order to be in line
with modern language.
2:17:43 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX held CSHB 123(CRA) over.
2:18:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said there had been technical issues
the witnesses mentioned of which did not appear to be
controversial and asked whether staff would include those issues
in the committee substitute.
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that staff may include some of the issues.
2:19:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN related that the committee may want to
review page 3, [line 9], "(2) "immediate family member" means a
spouse, child or parent." He suggested the description is
narrower than what is being applied in this day and age for
immediate family members and that this was more a conceptual
idea and he didn't have the language.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked that Representative Claman work with her
office.
2:20:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to [Sec. 2, AS
17.38.080(h)(6)] page, 3, lines 21-22, which read:
(6) "rural area means a community with a
population of 6,000 or less as determined under AS
29.60.860(c).
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented that he is not familiar with
that statute but believes it was the subject of extensive debate
on the House floor in 1985. The statute discusses monuments and
"strange" things the committee may want to review.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked that Representative Gruenberg work with her
office.
[HB 123 was held over.]
SB 30-MARIJUANA REG;CONT. SUBST;CRIMES;DEFENSES
2:21:27 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would be
Senate CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 30(FIN), "An Act relating to
controlled substances; relating to marijuana; relating to crimes
and offenses related to marijuana and the use of marijuana;
relating to open marijuana containers; relating to established
villages and local options; relating to delinquent minors;
making conforming amendments; and providing for an effective
date." [Before the committee were SB 30, Versions Q and T.]
2:21:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt HCSCSSB 30, Version 29-
LS0231\Q, Martin, 4/3/15 as the working document. There being
no objection, Version Q was before the committee.
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that Version Q and [Version T] would be
discussed during the meeting.
2:22:42 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX responded to Representative Gruenberg's question
and reiterated that the committee would hear the two versions
and compare each.
2:23:40 PM
AMY SALTZMAN, Staff, Senator Lesil McGuire, referred to an
earlier version [N] of which there was a House companion, and
stated it offered an affirmative defense approach and that
concerns were expressed because it was at odds with the intent
of the initiative. She offered that creating a defense to a
legal activity would cause the expense of avoiding punishment or
avoiding prosecution to the person participating in a lawful
marijuana activity. The Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
found these concerns to be persuasive and redrafted the bill to
assure that the activities addressed in the initiative would be
affirmatively legal and removed them from controlled substances.
She advised it was the only other option presented to the
committee by Legislative Legal and Research Services at the
time, and later they offered another approach found in the
Senate Finance Committee version. She explained that the
substantive sections, where crimes were created with
implementation of the initiative, are in Secs. 44-51. She noted
that several different crimes were created, and were followed
through in the Senate Finance Committee of are mirrored with the
intent of the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee, to some
degree.
2:25:46 PM
JORDAN SHILLING, Staff, Senator John Coghill, explained that the
Senate Finance Committee added marijuana back into the
controlled substance schedules. He offered that when an
affirmative defense approach was attempted in the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee it met with vocal opposition. The
committee was advised by Legislative Legal and Research Services
that rather than rely on an affirmative defense, to put it back
into the controlled substance schedule and use a non-
applicability provision to say that the conduct is allowed under
the initiative. He explained that local option provisions were
included, essentially opting out by default established villages
in the unorganized borough and giving them the possibility of
opting in. He further explained that changes were made to the
open container law.
2:27:09 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that, under the current SB 30, places like
the unorganized borough would be able to have a marijuana shop,
but if it was not in an established village it wouldn't be able
to have anything along the road system.
MR. SHILLING responded that the provision is that only those in
an established village can opt in for the commercial side, and
everything else in the unorganized borough is opted out with no
provision to opt in. He agreed that there would be some places
in the unorganized borough on the road that would not have the
possibility of a marijuana establishment.
2:28:23 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to the language regarding how terrible
marijuana is and asked where that language came from.
MR. SHILLING surmised that Chair LeDoux was referring to [Sec.
1-2, Purpose and Findings sections of Version T] and said he was
not sure where the language originated as the amendment came
from Senator Lyman Hoffman's office, but he could get the
information to the committee.
2:28:52 PM
MS. SALTZMAN stated that the amendment was added when the
amendment from Senator Hoffman was added to the bill.
MS. SALTZMAN responded to Chair LeDoux that the language was
added in the Senate Finance Committee.
2:30:02 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that the big difference between the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee version and the bill from the
Senate are the felony aspects of the bill.
MR. SHILLING responded in the affirmative and opined that the
Senate Judiciary Standing Committee version does not include
felony conduct and noted that the highest penalty is a class A
misdemeanor which carries up to one year in jail and $10,000
fine. He pointed out that the Senate Finance Committee version
includes three felonies, which are: possessing 25 or more
plants, possessing a pound or more of marijuana, and furnishing
marijuana to a minor twice in five years. He explained that the
[last] felony is congruent to furnishing alcohol to a minor. He
related that the only other felony conduct in Title 4, contains
provisions related to delivering alcohol to a dry village.
2:31:26 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether there are any other differences
between the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee version and the
final bill.
MS. SALTZMAN responded that there were some differences in class
A misdemeanors, class B misdemeanors, and what was considered
violations. She explained that with regard to possession, the
Senate Finance Committee added that if a person had three, but
less than sixteen ounces of marijuana outside the home, or
twelve to twenty-four plants it would be a class A misdemeanor.
Those were changed from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
version. On the same note, she offered, having two but less
than three ounces of marijuana outside a person's home, or
possessing seven to eleven marijuana plants would be misconduct
and a class B misdemeanor.
2:32:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER referred to the question of unorganized
boroughs and surmised that within the Senate Finance Committee
version a community such as Tok, which is under the Tok
Community Umbrella Corporation, is not a village, and is in an
unorganized borough, that there are no provisions allowing Tok
to sell marijuana.
MR. SHILLING advised that if Tok is not a municipality, not an
established village, and in the unorganized borough, it would
not have any recourse to opt in.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER questioned whether within the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee version there is a provision for
communities such as Tok.
MR. SHILLING responded that the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee version contains the traditional local option law as
seen for alcohol, and by default they would have to actively opt
out.
2:33:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to a bill passed on the House
floor by Representative Tilton, and questioned whether that bill
covered the provisions currently covered in this bill. She
asked whether the House Judiciary Standing Committee is still
dealing with opt in/opt out, unorganized borough, dry, damp, and
wet issues in this bill. She related her understanding that the
bill sent to the Senate included all of those provisions in that
legislation.
CHAIR LEDOUX offered that Representative Millett was correct but
it is difficult to determine within 14 days what bill is going
to make it and what bill is not going to make it so the
committee is considering these issues right now.
MR. SHILLING offered that he is not an expert on HB 75, but it
is his understanding that the language for local option mirrors
the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee version.
2:34:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked if this committee will rehash [HB
75] again in [SB 30], or just focus on decriminalization.
CHAIR LEDOUX responded that her intent is to basically focus on
the decriminalization.
2:35:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned if it is appropriate to obtain
a sense from the committee regarding how it wants to approach SB
30.
CHAIR LEDOUX relayed that without actually voting on amendments,
the idea is to determine a sense of the committee as to whether
it wishes to go the route of the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee version, which had been discussed at length in this
committee, or go the route of the Senate Finance Committee
version, or go a different route.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT offered that she would like to fix the
Senate's mess.
2:36:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for a side-by-side comparison [of
the versions] to determine what the choices are.
CHAIR LEDOUX agreed, but said that the way the versions have
gone are far apart in that they are a totally different
technique, philosophy, etc. In that regard, she offered, a
side-by-side comparison will not work.
2:36:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined there is a lot to be gained by not
inventing too many wheels in one bill. He stated that SB 30 has
more to do with criminal sanctions and if the committee works
under the basic understanding that HB 75, which passed last
week, deals with the local option issues that this committee
should focus on criminal penalties and not much more.
2:38:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed that he does not want to write
off the work of a committee simply saying they didn't consider
all of the bill. He opined that the committee has an obligation
to make a rational decision with both versions in mind.
CHAIR LEDOUX responded that is the reason both versions are
before the committee today, in order to make a decision as a
committee as to where it wants to go. She said she leans toward
the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee version, but she did not
want to simply strip the bill and substitute the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee version without a discussion in
this committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he did not mean to imply anything
other than the fact that there is no reason to take a sense of
the committee without [reviewing both versions].
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to the House Judiciary Standing Committee
calendar and noted it will be spending plenty of time on SB 30.
2:40:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked that someone from Senate Finance
Committee testify in order for the committee to understand its
thinking.
CHAIR LEDOUX responded that Mr. Shilling is staff to Senator
John Coghill, and questioned whether Senator Coghill is on the
Senate Finance Committee.
MR. SHILLING noted that Senator Coghill is not on the Senate
Finance Committee, although Mr. Shilling assisted in carrying
the bill through that committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated he prefers to be certain both
sides of the argument are given an opportunity.
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that someone from Senate Finance
Committee is welcome to offer its version.
2:41:24 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX open public testimony.
2:41:37 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX stated that she had previously asked Cynthia
Franklin, during a House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee
meeting, that from the perspective of the regulator which
version made more sense. She said she believes Ms. Franklin
responded that it made more sense from a regulatory perspective
to leave marijuana out of controlled substances.
2:42:28 PM
CYNTHIA FRANKLIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
(ABC Board), Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development, agreed with Chair LeDoux's depiction of her
statement and said that the preliminary considerations document
the ABC Board released during a February board meeting contains
a section addressing this issue. She advised that the board
joined with her and the enforcement staff in recommending an
approach removing the substance from the Controlled Substances
Act and creating crimes around this substance in one place along
with the regulations. She offered that Title 4, is modeled in
this manner that when looking for the rules around commercial
and non-commercial alcohol, other than the vehicle crime in
Title 28, all of the alcohol crimes are in Title 4. She
described the carve out approach that has crimes involving the
substance in the Controlled Substances Act, in that alcohol
itself is not illegal but there is conduct around alcohol that
is illegal. Title 4, explains what can and cannot be done
around alcohol. The voters said they do not want marijuana to
be illegal in Alaska, but do want some conduct around marijuana
to be illegal which is reflected in AS 17.38. She indicated
that speaking from a regulatory standpoint, it would be simpler
to explain to everyone what the rules around marijuana are, what
can and can't be done with that dangerous substance, in one
place. She advised this is the reason the board recommended the
substance be removed and that crimes be created in one place to
mirror the scheme around alcohol. She further advised that she
spoke with Colorado regulators regarding the "carve out system,"
and they stated it substantially injured their ability to shut
down the black market and prevent diversion because the rules
can be confusing for the public and law enforcement. She noted
that a police officer has to determine whether the marijuana is
illegal as a controlled substance Title 11 marijuana, or whether
it is legal but regulated in Title 17 marijuana. She said that
putting the police officer in that position while standing on
the side of the road, from the board's perspective, is an
undesirable way of regulating this substance with public safety
in mind and preventing the diversion while staying on the right
side of the federal rules (indisc.).
2:45:58 PM
DOLLYNDA PHELPS, said with regard to the Senate Finance
Committee version [Purpose} on page 1, she saw propaganda of the
1960s-1980s, and urged that current information and medical
research be involved. She said she found issue with the 16
ounce limit and everything produced from six plants as there
should not be any limit within the house, but there should be a
limit outside of the home for safety precautions. In truly
following the initiative there should not be any limits within
the home, she offered. She stated that cannabis should not be
considered a controlled substance and should stay off of the VIA
schedule list. She related that her research found that under
Schedule VI there is "no currently accepted medical use in the
United States for the substance." She referred to U.S. Patent
No. 6630507, "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and Neuroprotectants"
is assigned to the United States of America as represented by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Clearly,
there is an accepted medical use for cannabis and it does not
belong on Schedule VIA which is in conflict with the current
form of SB 30 that does put cannabis in a Schedule VI category.
2:48:30 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed to Ms. Franklin's opinion wherein it might
make it better for regulators to control and regulate both
liquor and marijuana if they are not in controlled substances,
and that both are treated the same. She asked what difference
it makes as long as a person is not arrested whether [cannabis]
is considered a controlled substance or not.
MS. PHELPS responded that by definition cannabis does not belong
[in controlled substances] as there are many accepted medical
uses in the United States. She noted that in going further
"there is a larger animal at hand, even federally." She
related that the initiative clearly states that concentrates are
a product of cannabis, and that marijuana and marijuana products
would become legal, and that several petitions were signed and
sent to the Senate supporting this. She offered that
concentrates are commonly used which require enough strength to
benefit patients suffering from cancer, Parkinson's disease,
fibromyalgia, and epilepsy, among others. A person's right to
survival should not be diminished by the United States or the
State of Alaska, she opined. She stated that (indisc.)
concentrated form otherwise there are not enough health benefits
to relieve cancer or fibromyalgia [symptoms] and that research
would offer more guidance
2:51:43 PM
JASON HOWARD, referred to [Sec. 2], page 2, lines 24-25, which
read:
(2) several hundred adults and children are
admitted into treatment each year in Alaska for
marijuana abuse, with nearly 46 percent being children
under 20 years of age;
MR. HOWARD advised he has researched this issue and found the
provision misleading in that it is possibly taken out of context
wherein a child has a choice to go to juvenile detention or go
to rehab for marijuana, as with adults. He said he also
contacted researchers regarding issues of suicide and other
problems that children have, and they found that studies have
shown that IQ deficiency has led to self-harm, and that the
researchers offered they never looked into how the body makes
cannabinoids in children. He noted that he spoke with a
therapist on the Kenai Peninsula who advised that almost half of
the children he treats have a problem with self-harm. Mr.
Howard said that when a person cuts themselves, the body heals
with cannabinoids and noted he is confused as to why the
legislature is not looking at these things. He referred to
[Sec. 2], page 2, lines 26-28, which read:
(3) there is evidence that some users become
dependent on marijuana under the clinical standards
applied by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders IV; ...
MR. HOWARD referenced the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM) and stated that it should not be used as
scientific data in that it was written from work groups and task
forces, and is a guide for insurance companies. He explained
that the DSM is not based on scientific data and that this
information is actually written in the DSM itself, and
therefore, is not a reliable source. He referred to [Sec. 2],
page 3, lines 4-6, which read:
(5) a significant percentage of persons in
treatment for alcohol abuse also abuse a secondary
drug, which may include marijuana; nevertheless, the
relationship between marijuana and alcohol and other
drugs is not fully understood;
2:54:37 PM
MR. HOWARD stated his disagreement with the above provision in
that there is plenty of research on how marijuana and
cannabinoids affect the brain, and the reward system. He then
referred to [Sec. 2], page 3, lines 7-14, which read:
(6) marijuana consists of hundreds of different
chemicals that can affect almost every organ and
system in the body, including the lymph system, the
heart, and the lungs; THC binds to receptors in the
brain that should otherwise bind to naturally
occurring brain chemicals; marijuana can affect
memory, attention, judgment, and other cognitive
functions and can impair motor coordination, time
perception, and balance; marijuana smoke contains more
carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke;
marijuana often contains bacteria or fungi that are
dangerous to humans, and may be harvested and sold
without removing pesticides and fungicides;
MR. HOWARD disagreed with the above provision in that a person's
body has a lipid signaling system that is performed by
cannabinoids, and it regulates everything in the human body.
Unfortunately, the provision implies it is a negative effect.
The issue of bacteria and fungi being dangerous to humans is
something that having [cannabis] controlled and regulated would
be addressed. He referred to [Sec. 2], page 3, lines 15-16,
which read:
(7) about 40 percent of the adults arrested in
this state who commit violent offenses have marijuana
in their system at the time of the arrest;
MR. HOWARD offered that this provision is also misleading in
that most of the tests today do not test for active THC
metabolites and test for inactive metabolites. A person could
smoke one day and be tested 30 days later and still have those
metabolites in their system. He said he disagrees with the six
plant limit per household as he is a medical marijuana user, and
a disabled veteran who was blown up by two improvised explosive
devices (IEDs.) He related that he is on a large amounts of
opioids, lorazepan, and heavy narcotics for anxiety, sleep, and
migraines. He pointed out that all of those issues are
eliminated with large amounts of cannabis an expressed concern
regarding limiting cannabis to six plants for those who require
large amounts of cannabis.
2:57:58 PM
RACHELLE YEUNG, Marijuana Policy Project, offered support for
the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee's version of SB 30 given
that their suggestions were addressed. She then referred to
Secs. 1-2, of the bill and stated they should be completely
deleted in that Sec. 1, concerns opting out of the unorganized
boroughs. She pointed out that this committee deemed that the
unorganized borough should not be opted out and instead
established villages within the borough should have the option
to opt themselves out. She pointed to Sec. 2, and stated it
should be stricken for its irrelevancy and unscientific
findings, that it does not appear these findings were discussed
during any of the hearings, and that she found it curious that
by its language should make empty statutes. She offered the
recommendation that the bill not ban delivery as it could affect
medical patients with mobility issues who are home bound. She
suggested reviewing the proposed fines or penalties for some of
the crimes as they may not meet up with the standards set by the
initiative. She pointed out that possibly a drafting error made
it illegal for adults to display, use, or possess under an ounce
of marijuana, which is contrary to the fundamental purpose of
the initiative. She suggested amending the definition of open
marijuana containers to the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee's definition.
[SB 30 was held over.]
3:02:05 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| AK-Initiative-Text.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| Hb 123 amend H.1.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| Hb 123 H.2.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 CS ver E.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 CS ver H.PDF |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 CS ver N.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Fiscal Note - DOA.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Letter of Opposition.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Memo regarding fiscal note revision-DOA.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Supporting Documents - ABC.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123-DCCED-ABC-03-09-15.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Ver A.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| Hotrum v State.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
|
| SB30 v T.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| CSSSB30 Draft Proposed v Q.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| CSSB30(SFIN) Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| CSSB30(FIN) Sectional Analysis Version T.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 30 |