Legislature(2013 - 2014)Anch Temporary LIO
10/28/2014 08:30 AM Senate SELECT COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
MINUTES from October 28, 2014
FULL COMMITTEE MEETING
ANCHORAGE LIO, Conference Room 105
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: 8:40:11 AM Committee Chair Gary
Turner called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m. Members
present: Senator Cathy Giessel, Senator Berta Gardner,
Representative Andy Josephson, Representative Charisse
Millett, Janie Leask, H. Conner Thomas, Chair Gary
Turner; Staff present: Joyce Anderson Committee
Consultant, Ethics Administrator Jerry Anderson;
Teleconference: Dan Wayne, LAA Legal; Absent: Dennis
"Skip" Cook and Herman G. Walker, Jr.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 8:41:21 AM There were no changes made
to the agenda; Senator Gardner motioned to approve. No
Objection. Motion passes.
Chair Turner welcomed new Ethics Administrator Jerry
Anderson and introduced him to the floor.
8:42:13 AM Mr. Anderson provided members his background
stating that he's been an attorney for 25 years and has
been in public and private practice and experienced in
both civil and criminal. He stated that he was a
magistrate in Galena and Kenai for five years, prior to
working for APOC (Alaska Public Offices Commission),
where he was an Assistant Director for five years--
almost six--before coming here. He stated that he was
pleased to be onboard and is appreciative of Ms.
Anderson's organized training. Members verbally welcomed
him to the committee.
Representative Charisse Millett joins meeting.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 8:43:23 AM
a. October 28, 2013 Full Committee - Chair Turner noted
that Metlakatla was misspelled; motion to approve the
minutes with spelling correction. No objection. Motion
passed.
b. January 23, 2014 Full Committee - Senator Gardner
motioned to approve. No objections. Motion passed.
c. May 29, 2014 Full Committee - Member Leask motioned to
approve. No objections. Motion passed.
d. May 29, 2014 Senate Subcommittee - Member Thomas
motioned to approve. No objections. Motion passed.
e. May 29, 2014 House Subcommittee - Member Leask
motioned to approve. No objections. Motion passed.
f. June 19, 2014 Full Committee - Representative Millett
motioned to approve. No objections. Motion passed.
g. September 25, 2014 Full Committee - Member Thomas
stated that he attended this meeting but the minutes
do not reflect this. Senator Gardner motioned to
approve with correction. No objections. Motion passes.
8:46:31 AM
4. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
8:48:02 AM
5. CHAIR/STAFF REPORT
a. Informal Advice - Ms. Anderson reported that members
should have received June's staff reports, the July 1-
11 staff report, and September's staff report. The
staff entries with initials RD are Reggie Drummond's
informal advice entries. Ms. Anderson provided
comments to some of entries for clarification
purposes. Staff reports for July 12-31 and for the
month of August will follow later. These were prepared
by Reggie Drummond and are being reviewed by Ms.
Anderson.
b. Ethics Disclosures - A report of late disclosures was
provided in the committee packet. Ms. Anderson also
referred members to the report in the committee packet
reflecting the number and type of disclosures filed
from January - September 30, 2014.
Representative Josephson 8:50:15 AM asked Ms. Anderson
the most common reason for receiving late disclosures.
Ms. Anderson replied that in regards to filers who
file late "Gift of Travel/Hospitality" disclosures the
reason is usually because the person forgot or
sometimes a late filing is due to staff change over,
versus waiting for information from the donor.
c. Committee Member Vacancies for 2015 - 8:52:16 AM
Ms. Anderson announced that two public members' terms
will be expiring in January of 2015--Dennis "Skip"
Cook and Herman G. Walker, Jr. Members Cook and Walker
have been notified but neither has indicated whether
or not he will re-submit his name to Chief Justice
Dana Fabe for reconsideration of another term. Ms.
Anderson proceeded to provide members the procedures
of the nomination process for vacancies on the
committee. A letter will be sent to the Chief Justice
notifying her of the two terms that are expiring.
Chief Justice Dana Fabe will not appoint anyone until
after session has begun. If the Chief Justice provides
the names prior to session, the member will only serve
for the first 30 days of the legislative session. If
the names are provided after session starts, the
members will serve until a successor has been
appointed. Additionally, Ms. Anderson stated that by
November 1, 2014, the committee will be sending out a
notice announcing the two vacancies. It will be posted
on our website, in our newsletter, and be sent to
legislators, as well as all of the LIOs. The two
members with expiring terms need to be approved by
two-thirds vote of the full senate and house.
Leadership involved in the process has been contacted.
Ms. Anderson also stated the terms of the legislators
who are currently serving on the Ethics Committee will
expires the first day of session. The Ethics Committee
has recommended that the House and Senate approve
appointments to the committee on the first day of
session, as the Ethics Committee is scheduled to meet
on the second day of session. The floor was opened for
questions. No questions.
d. Ethics Training 2015 8:55:52 AM
Ms. Anderson stated 2015 ethics training would be held
at Centennial Hall due to construction of the Terry
Miller Office Building. Training begins on January 13,
2015, for agency staff and other staff who do not work
directly for legislators. On January 15, training will
be available for new and returning staff to
legislators. Training for new legislators will be held
during the week of orientation. She and Jerry Anderson
will be conducting the training sessions. There will
be "make-up" sessions in the Capitol on the 22nd and
23rd as well as a teleconference training session for
LIO staff who are not in Juneau in early February. Ms.
Anderson stated that she would primarily conduct the
training for "new" legislators with Mr. Anderson's
assistance. The training for new legislators is
personalized. For example, the backgrounds of new
legislators will be reviewed to include in the
examples presented; if a new legislator is serving as
a board member of an organization, then she will
explain how that legislator is required to file a
"board membership" disclosure. Mr. Anderson would
conduct training for staff and returning legislators.
Mr. Anderson interjected that LIO training was also
coming up on December 2, 2014. It will be held at the
Westmark in Anchorage. Mr. Anderson will speak briefly
and provide a short overview of questions and answers.
Senator Gardner asked members if staff would be in
Juneau early enough for training on January 15. Ms.
Anderson replied that week is orientation week and
traditionally staff travel to Juneau a week before
session starts.
Member Thomas and Chair Turner asked for more details
on the Ethics Committee meeting in January. Ms.
Anderson stated it is on January 21, and that public
members are asked to arrive early to provide support
and input during legislator training and also to meet
their statutory requirement to attend training.
Members may arrive in Juneau Sunday night or Monday
morning. There will be a Full Committee meeting and
likely a Senate Subcommittee meeting and a House
Subcommittee meeting.
e. COGEL December 2014 Conference - 9:02:49 AM
A handout of the COGEL conference and registration
form was distributed to committee members. Chair
Turner stated that the conference was being held in
Pittsburgh, PA, December 7-10. Funds have been
allocated or budgeted for up to two or three to attend
and the committee formally requests that Jerry
Anderson attend.
Ms. Anderson added that if anyone else wanted to
attend, s/he would need to act on it asap. A certain
number of rooms are allocated for the event and are
booked early. Several members of the committee have
attended in the past and found the conference helpful.
Please contact Ms. Leigh of the Ethics office and she
will assist in the registration and reserving a room.
The Chair extended the offer to attend the conference
to Ms. Anderson. Ms. Anderson stated that she would
think it over. The Chair thanked Ms. Anderson for her
consideration.
f. Anchorage LIO Renovation Update 9:06:28 AM
Juli Lucky was introduced by Chair Turner to provide
an overview. Ms. Lucky introduced Andrew Weiss,
Project Architect of KPB Architects in Anchorage, and
distributed a handout.
Mr. Weiss provided an overview of the project stating
that they began less than a year ago, taking over of
the Anchor Pub, demolishing it, and began building the
new tower. They are on schedule to be complete mid-
December. Target date for the office furniture is
December 15, 2014. Occupancy of building will occur
during the move to Juneau.
Ms. Lucky interjected that the furniture for the
Ethics office has been ordered with one piece
outstanding, which is a privacy panel. Year-round
employees should be moving around January 8 or 9,
depending on how long it takes to load the vans for
Juneau.
Mr. Weiss stated that there will be some coordination
with the IT Department. The lights on floors 2-6 are
lit up now, the front of the building is a little
behind as far as the lighting goes, but stated they
will catch up and meet our schedule. Mr. Weiss offered
to provide tours to interested parties.
Ms. Anderson interjected that she, Mr. Anderson, and
Ms. Leigh toured the building yesterday, led by Mr.
Kendell.
Member Leask asked Mr. Weiss if they were on budget
and he replied yes, they were on budget and on time;
he also stated that often times when you dig into a
project that's been around for a while, and start
over, there's usually a lot of surprises but having
done these in the past, they knew that that could
happen and made provisions for it. They are past the
"unknowns" and now it's just a matter of getting it
done.
Ms. Anderson commented that there were two conference
rooms on the second floor that were a good size and
could accommodate an Ethics Committee meeting - very
convenient to be on the same floor as the Ethics
office. Ms. Anderson noted that the carpet on the
second floor had been installed and was covered while
the work continued. She also noted that the walls had
been painted--Mr. Weiss confirmed this. Ms. Anderson
asked Mr. Weiss for details on the sound proofing.
Mr. Weiss stated that all walls between the suites had
high, sound proof (STC rating) walls. It's more than
your typical sheet-rock wall. There have been other
provisions put into the wall to help sound going from
room to room; the carpet helps absorb sound, they
installed high-end ceiling tiles to help with sound
bouncing over the top, and the partitions (or walls)
between suites go from floor to the structure above,
so there is no gapping space above the ceiling tile.
They took every provision they could to separate the
suites going down the corridor.
There is white noise in any project that will help but
they can only do so much if you choose to leave your
door open. He stated he felt that they did a pretty
extensive job with sound proofing from room to room.
In the hearing rooms on the first floor, everything is
sealed up to the deck above for sound, so that it is
solid jib board walls with insulation in between them.
All the duct work that goes from the public corridors
that goes into the offices has sound boots, which
makes sound difficult to get around.
Ms. Lucky asked to return to the subject of the
conference rooms, stating that when the architects
designed the building, one requirement was that the
public hearing rooms all be situated on the first
floor to avoid heavy traffic in the elevators and to
maintain the public in the LIO portion of the
building. Other conference rooms would be upstairs.
The second floor has two fairly large-sized conference
rooms, roughly the size of what we had before on the
5th & 6th floors. One of them will be set up for video
conferencing, so we won't be doing what we did earlier
and having our video conferencing room and the public
hearing room be the same space. Either of these rooms
will be ideal for committee meetings or where there
isn't a lot of public involvement other than a few
more committee members.
Ms. Anderson interjected that they would be ideal for
executive sessions. Ms. Lucky agreed, stating that it
would also be easier to control for executive sessions
because there is just one entrance, and it won't
interfere with public hearings like before.
Ms. Lucky explained that on the 3rd-6th floors, there
are small conference rooms or small areas/small
meeting rooms, not designed for committee meetings.
Capacity of rooms was discussed; Senator Gardner asked
the people capacity of the auditorium.
Mr. Weiss stated they were asked to lay it out in
three basic configurations; a configuration like
today's meeting which holds about 100-130 people;
another configuration like a training room, and a
third style to have a testifier and a note-taking
person. The room is about 2-3 times larger than what
the conference rooms were before on the second floor.
Mr. Weiss added that if the auditorium were full, the
meeting could be piped into the conference rooms next
to it. Everything has been laid out to be moved on
carts and put into storage in the basement.
Ms. Anderson asked for clarification regarding the
outside door and inside door to the Ethics office
9:21:19 AM. She commented that the space for the
entrance door to Ethics is very wide but is under the
impression there is going to be a glass panel door
that will be frosted or smoked.
Mr. Weiss confirmed that the glass going into the
suites will be translucent which will allow light
through but you won't be able to see who's in the
space unless you're right up to it.
Ms. Anderson asked about the noise barrier.
Mr. Weiss reiterated that the noise is going from side
to side, suite to suite, and the walls going out to
the corridor also go up to the deck above and are
sound insulated. The glass will do what it's supposed
to do, but won't be 100%. He stated that it should be
fine as long as you don't talk right up to it.
In regards to the glass, sliding door, located inside
Ethics and the entrance to the Administrator's office,
it is a sliding door to save square footage. It has a
"soft close" mechanism so you can't slam it. The frame
of the glass slider will capture the whole wall so
there won't be any gaps. When the door shuts, there
will be a gasket that seals against the vertical
molding. It will help mitigate any sound transfer. He
believes there was a request for the Ethics office to
have an additional feature that when the door is
closed another piece drops out of the bottom to seal
to the floor.
Ms. Anderson asked Ms. Lucky for an approximate move
in date for Ethics. Ms. Lucky stated that it will be
January 8 or 9, but the furniture will be delivered
mid-December. The only thing that we will be waiting
on is the "D-mark" (installed after certification for
occupancy), referred to by IT. At some point, the
"server" has to be installed. The difficulty in moving
Ethics is that there might not be any phone service or
computer access if Ethics moves in too soon.
Mr. Weiss responded that there can be a conditional
certification for occupancy drawn up well before that.
This will allow all the other vendors to enter the
building at that point to complete their work.
Ms. Anderson stated that Ethics items are contained in
one office which should make the move easier than
others who have items in storage, and other areas,
etc.
Ms. Lucky reiterated that her concern isn't the
difficulty of moving Ethics, it's that she wants to be
sure that the infrastructure is complete. Ms. Lucky
stated that Wi-Fi access might be an option until the
server is up. When the server is moved from across the
street, it has to be down 12 hours. The plan was to
have it down while all the computers were on the van
because it would be the least used computer time for
most and the least inconvenienced time. Getting the
office items moved in before January shouldn't be a
problem. More discussion is encouraged as the time to
move nears.
6. BUDGET 9:27:12 AM
a. FY14 Final Budget Update: Ms. Anderson stated that
what you see in the packet are final numbers for FY14,
ending on June 30, 2014. There is a lapse of $32,000.
The carryover was highest in the services area which
included money for Brent Cole, outside legal counsel,
investigators, etc. She inquired why $126 and $15 were
encumbered when the budget period is closed. The
invoices were received in FY14 but paid out of FY15.
b. FY15 Budget Update: Ms. Anderson stated FY15
started on July 1 and will run through June 30, 2016.
$250,400 budgeted; $47,500 expended, with a balance of
$205,000. Ms. Anderson reported under "personal
services" there is a $46,000 increase which is for
benefits; a percentage of salary, and fixed health
insurance costs. For Ms. Leigh, the health insurance
benefit is 50%; Ms. Anderson who is under contract
receives a reduced percentage of salary and no health
insurance benefit. Ms. Anderson reported there are
adequate funds for FY15 expenses based on current
estimates of costs.
c. FY16 Budget Projections: Ms. Anderson talked to
Executive Director Pam Varni who has recommended a
maintenance budget level. Ms. Anderson stated she
concurred. There will be a 1% across the board cost of
living increase that is expected to be approved by the
legislature; the health insurance monthly rate will
decrease by $25. 9:30:43 AM Ms. Anderson stated she
didn't expect the FY15 budget to lapse as many funds
as FY14 due to increased costs related to the
transition of the administrator; therefore, she
recommended approving the maintenance budget.
Members were asked if there were any objections to
approving the FY16 Maintenance Budget. There were no
objections. Motion passes.
Representative Josephson asked if the motion that just
passed included the committee asking Ms. Varni to
submit the maintenance budget formally to the
legislature.
Ms. Anderson clarified that the committee would be
sending a letter to Ms. Varni stating that the
committee recommends the maintenance budget. Ms. Varni
will include the recommendation with the rest of
Legislative Council's budget for the Ombudsman's
office, Office Victims' Right's, etc.
7. CONTRACT SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT: 9:31:57 AM Chair Turner
stated that in May, the committee established a
subcommittee to look at "independent consultants" and
"contractors" and compliance with the Legislative
Ethics Act. Chair Turner introduced Senator Gardner to
the floor.
Senator Gardner stated that although the subcommittee
did not officially meet, they reached out to each
other and conducted some research on the subject and
have a proposed recommendation. Senator Gardner
introduced her aid, TJ Presley, to present the
proposal.
Mr. Presley introduced himself as staff to Senator
Gardner, and provided a recap on what the subcommittee
was tasked to do and the status of their
recommendations. He stated that the subcommittee was
asked to look at a certain statute that includes
"consultants" and "independent contractors" in the
definition of a legislative employee. Currently, this
means that if you are a consultant or contractor, you
are required to take Legislative Ethics Training,
subject to filing ethics disclosures, and follow other
requirements of the Ethics Act.
Mr. Presley stated he obtained a legal opinion from
LAA Legal and had submitted a research request. The
recommendation that came from these areas is supported
by Ms. Anderson. The recommendation is to simply
change the definition of "legislative employee" by
removing "consultant" and "independent contractor"
from the definition, and properly give "consultant"
and "independent contractor" their own definitions and
then determine the ethical requirements.
Mr. Presley stated that in 2012, the Ethics Committee
decided that students, interns, and volunteers of the
legislature who fell under the definition of
legislative employees should be given different
ethical requirements than for those of employee
working for the legislature. The subcommittee is
recommending the same for "consultants" and
"independent contractors".
The subcommittee, which is made up of four legislative
members, Rep Charisse Millett, Sen Berta Gardner, Rep
Andy Josephson, and Rep Chris Tuck, as well as Public
Member Conner Thomas, will be having a public meeting
to discuss definitions and ethical requirements for
these groups.
Senator Gardner added that "consultants" and
"independent contractors" technically already fall
under the Ethics Act as employees but in practice they
haven't actually followed the Act so it's difficult to
know what kind of an impediment there might be to
people who are interested in responding to a proposal
from the legislature and whether or not people would
balk at that requirement and not bid or respond. She
believes the requirements could create problems if the
Ethics Act were enforced as it is written today.
Member Thomas asked if Sen Gardner was suggesting a
statute change. She responded yes.
Senator Gardner and Mr. Presley suggested scheduling a
meeting date with a deadline for a resolution by
December before committee terms ended so there would
be something to submit to the 2015 Legislative
Session.
Members of the subcommittee scheduled to meet on
Monday, November 10, at 10 o'clock. The meeting will
be teleconferenced for those who cannot attend in
person.
8. DISCUSSION: 2015 STATUTORY CHANGES: 9:38:50 AM
Chair Turner stated that the committee does not have
statutory authority to collect fines. They have a
legal opinion from Brent Cole that says that the
committee can levy fines but if they are not paid, the
committee cannot statutorily collect them. The opinion
also stated the committee can pursue a statutory
change. Mr. Cole suggested referencing a past suit,
Malone vs. Meekins, prior to drafting language as the
language may be helpful in providing some caution on
the statutory wording.
Chair Turner invited Jerry Anderson to provide the
members highlights of APOC's collection procedure.
9:40:22 AM
Mr. Anderson stated that APOC had similar concerns and
developed a formal process with the Department of Law.
The Department of Law prepared a memorandum which laid
out the types of necessary forms for APOC to use when
referring a matter to the Attorney General's office
for collection. That was in 2009. In 2010 and 2011,
APOC was undergoing a major regulation update, and the
commission adopted the formal memorandum in order for
APOC to give due process to those that came into
contact with APOC through the complaint process. The
due process is to notice an opportunity to be heard
and an opportunity to appeal any ruling that APOC
issued. A simple regulation was adopted showing they
had the authority to forward a referral. Although it
would be different for Ethics, the due process is
what's important.
Mr. Anderson stated that when he was employed with
APOC, a client who was a prominent attorney commented
that he didn't think APOC would ever enforce
collection which is why he didn't pay his fine.
Mr. Anderson proceeded stating that the Department of
Law is looking to make sure that APOC (or whatever
agency,) has gone through the proper steps. When the
Department of Law receives a collection notice from an
agency, such as APOC, they give the client notice
again and verify the copy of the order is a certified
copy and that APOC went through all the proper steps.
Ms. Anderson asked Mr. Anderson to further explain
what happens once the Department of Law receives the
notice from APOC.
Mr. Anderson stated that APOC developed form letters
stating the matter will be referred to the Attorney
General in an attempt to collect the fine. The AG
office in turn sends out a letter stating they are
going to be filing a suit against the person to
formally get a judgment established. The intent is be
able to attach any bank accounts of which APOC is
aware of or the PFD for the collection. APOC, however,
is at the bottom of the list of priority for
collecting money; other agencies such as child support
is high on the list. The matter will go to the courts
eventually, if the fine is not collected, but it is
very rare.
Chair Turner asked Mr. Anderson if fines accrued
interest the longer they are not paid. Mr. Anderson
stated that APOC does not have that provision in
statute or in their regulations. Costs for the
collection process are added, however.
Chair Turner asked if a statutory change would cover
existing overdue fines and accrue interest for failure
to pay. Mr. Anderson replied that it was his opinion
it could be difficult to accomplish.
Ms. Anderson responded that perhaps statutory language
could be written with an effective date for fines
currently in place.
Member Thomas asked Mr. Anderson if APOC statutes
currently allow the actual collection of the fines.
Mr. Anderson stated that it exists by regulation. The
imposition of a fine is by statute under AS 15.13.380,
the complaint process. There are two complaint process
methods; one is an informal process which typically is
a late filing type of issue and the other is a formal
complaint for other than late filings.
Member Thomas 9:46:58 AM pointed out the reason he
asks is because in Mr. Cole's letter, the Ethics Act
is silent on how to enforce the collection of a fine.
Mr. Anderson responded APOC enforces the collection of
a fine by regulation of a particular statute.
Senator Gardner added that Ethics could do the same,
because regulatory changes are sometimes easier to
make than statutory changes. Ms. Anderson replied that
Ethics does not have regulatory authority. Senator
Gardner stated that Ethics could perhaps make the
suggestion to whomever has the authority.
Representative Millett stated that it would be her
understanding that they would have to have a statute
change that gives us (Ethics) regulatory authority to
do what APOC did.
Additionally, in response to late fines already
accrued, Rep Millett stated that Ethics would run into
retro activity. She also asked if Ethics currently
had a large outstanding amount of money in fines or a
small amount of money outstanding.
Ms. Anderson stated that there was a large outstanding
amount owed by former Representative Alan Dick. He
paid $5,000 of his approximate $17,000 fine due on
September 1, 2014. His remaining outstanding balance
is approximately $12,000.
Representative Josephson added that he didn't believe
there would be an issue for retroactivity because it's
a collection, and not the punishment. The penalty does
not change, therefore, you could go back and use the
statute retroactively.
Mr. Anderson restated that it was the due process
built into the process, and whether or not you'd have
to go back and somehow implement that for a fine that
had already occurred.
Ms. Anderson responded that Ethics does have a due
process. Currently, the person has 30 days to respond
to or appeal the decision or fine. In all complaints,
when there's a decision issued by the Ethics
Committee, the person is notified by letter stating
that they have, by statute, 30 days to appeal the
decision.
Mr. Anderson added that APOC had a due process for
part of the process, but the courts required a
separate due process when clients did not pay timely,
as ordered by APOC.
Representative Millett stated that it was her
understanding that Ethics has a due process that
notifies people of the fine but no due process after
the fine is in arrears, and asked members if this was
correct. Chair Turner and Ms. Anderson both replied
yes.
9:51:04 AM Dan Wayne, LAA Legal, was invited by Chair
Turner to comment or add proposed statutory language
to the two-step process before them. Mr. Wayne stated
that he did not have any comment on today's
discussion; that he has not read Mr. Cole's memo, and
that this was a new issue for him.
Member Thomas commented that the retroactive issue is
more of a secondary issue and what they really want to
make sure of is that we have the authority of going
forward to collect fines.
9:52:44 AM Member Thomas motioned that the committee
refer this matter to Mr. Wayne for further research
and submit a proposal to the committee by December 1,
2014, if agreeable to him. There was no objection.
Mr. Wayne responded that he would work on this but
that he would need a specific question from the
committee. Chair Turner replied that Ms. Anderson and
Mr. Anderson would provide this to him.
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 9:53:38 AM Members went into
Executive Session to discuss matters which must remain
confidential pursuant to AS 24.60.160(b) Advisory
Opinions.
10. PUBLIC SESSION: Members returned to Public Session.
11. OTHER BUSINESS: None.
12. ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 10:08am.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| AGENDA.pdf |
JETH 10/28/2014 8:30:00 AM |
|
| ITEM 3.pdf |
JETH 10/28/2014 8:30:00 AM |
MINUTES |
| ITEM 5a.pdf |
JETH 10/28/2014 8:30:00 AM |
INFORMAL ADVICE STAFF REPORT |
| ITEM 5b.pdf |
JETH 10/28/2014 8:30:00 AM |
DISCLOSURES |
| ITEM 5c.pdf |
JETH 10/28/2014 8:30:00 AM |
COMMITTEE MEMBER VACANCIES FOR 2015 |
| ITEM 5d.pdf |
JETH 10/28/2014 8:30:00 AM |
ETHICS TRAINING |
| ITEM 6.pdf |
JETH 10/28/2014 8:30:00 AM |
BUDGET |
| ITEM 8.pdf |
JETH 10/28/2014 8:30:00 AM |
2015 STATUTORY CHANGES |