Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/12/1993 09:20 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 12, 1993
9:20 a.m.
TAPES
SFC-93, #57, Side 1 (337-end)
SFC-93, #57, Side 1 (575-end)
SFC-93, #59, Side 1 (000-496)
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Drue Pearce, Co-chair, convened the meeting at
approximately 9:20 a.m.
PRESENT
In addition to Co-chair Pearce, Senators Kelly, Kerttula,
Rieger, and Sharp were present. Co-chair Frank arrived soon
after the meeting began. Senator Jacko arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
ALSO ATTENDING: Senator Robin Taylor; Senator Randy
Phillips; Randy Welker, Legislative Auditor, Legislative
Audit Division; Shelby Stastny, Director, Office of
Management and Budget; Jack Fargnoli, Office of Management
and Budget; Gary Anderson, Office of Management and Budget;
Dugan Petty, Director, General Services, Dept. of
Administration; Mark Hickey, lobbyist for the Alaska
Railroad Corporation; David Skidmore, aide to Senator Frank;
and aides to committee members and other members of the
legislature.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 76 - CHARITABLE GAMING RESTRICTIONS
Scheduled, but not heard during the course of
this meeting.
SB 88 - CAPITAL PROJECT GRANTS
Testimony was presented by Senator Randy
Phillips and Robin Taylor, Shelby Stastny,
and Jack Fargnoli. Two amendments were
adopted. The bill was subsequently HELD in
committee.
SB 128 - LEGISLATIVE AUDITS
Testimony was provided by Senator Randy
Phillips, Randy Welker, and Gary Anderson.
CSSB 128 (STA) was subsequently REPORTED OUT
of committee without recommendation,
accompanied by a zero fiscal note from Senate
State Affairs Committee for the Office of the
Governor. [This action was subsequently
rescinded. See meetings of 4/13/93 and
4/14/93.]
SB 129 - POWERS OF CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER
Testimony was presented by Senator Randy
Phillips, Randy Welker, and Dugan Petty. The
bill was subsequently HELD in committee.
SB 148 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION
Testimony was presented by David Skidmore and
Mark Hickey. CSSB 148 (Finance) ADOPTED as a
working document. The bill was subsequently
HELD in committee.
SB 76 CHARITABLE GAMING RESTRICTIONS
Co-chair Pearce announced that SB 76 would not be heard at
the present meeting. She advised that the committee was
seeking opinions from both the Dept. of Law and Legislative
Legal Services regarding sections relating to the Alaska
Public Radio Network.
(Co-chair Frank arrived at the meeting at this time.)
SENATE BILL NO. 88
An Act relating to grants to municipalities, named
recipients, and unincorporated communities;
establishing capital project matching grant programs
for municipalities and unincorporated communities;
establishing a local share requirement for capital
project grants to municipalities, named recipients, and
unincorporated communities; and providing for an
effective date.
Co-chair Pearce directed that SB 88 be brought on for
discussion, noted a prior committee hearing on the
legislation, and referenced proposed amendments.
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR and SHELBY STASTNY, Director, Office of
Management and Budget, came before committee. Co-chair
Pearce directed attention to an amendment by Senator Taylor
and asked that members designate it Amendment No. 2.
Senator Taylor explained that instead of merely utilizing
the population base and differentiating on a percentile
basis what each community should pay toward capital grants,
the amendment factors in actual community ability to pay.
The Senator explained that it would not be proper for a
community such as Wrangell, with a mill levy of $73.0 to
$75.0, to be classed with Anchorage, which has a tax base of
$10 million, and the North Slope Borough with $12.3 billion.
Those with a greater tax base should pay a greater
percentage.
Senator Taylor next referenced a spread sheet attached to
Amendment No. 2, saying it presents figures for additional
dollars driven into the formula as a result of the proposed
amendment.
When queried by Co-chair Pearce for his comments, Mr.
Stastny noted that when the capital matching grant program
was originally introduced by the administration, two years
ago, it included an "ability to pay" concept. That formula
was removed from the bill prior to introduction in the
current legislature. The administration has no objection to
the concept or the amendment.
Senator Kerttula MOVED for adoption of Amendment No. 2. No
objection having been raised, Amendment No. 2 was ADOPTED.
Co-chair Pearce next directed attention to Amendment No. 1.
She explained that it results from correspondence from
Anchorage Mayor, Tom Fink. That correspondence speaks to
opposition to increase of the match ratio from 70/30 to
50/50. Senator Rieger MOVED for adoption of Amendment No.
1. Senator Kelly OBJECTED and inquired concerning
percentage changes. Senator Kerttula noted that population
is not necessarily a good factor on which to base grants.
Ability to pay based on the tax base is a better indicator.
He then questioned whether communities aside from those with
large tax bases could easily accumulate matching funds, and
he voiced support for the amendment.
Senator Rieger pointed to need to extend the proposed
amendment beyond July 1, 1994, and indicated need for an
amendment to Amendment No. 1, deleting most of subsection
(1) at page 11, lines 1 and 2. The only language from the
subsection to be retained should be "the local share
percentage is." Co-chair Pearce concurred. Senator Rieger
then MOVED for adoption of the amendment to Amendment No.
1. Senator Kelly again OBJECTED. He suggested that if
municipalities are to be weaned from state dollars, the
50/50 match is a better plan for the state general fund.
Senator Kelly then REMOVED his OBJECTION. No further
objection having been raised, the amendment to Amendment No.
1 was ADOPTED. Co-chair Frank noted that passage of the
proposed bill would not prohibit the legislature from making
designated grants.
(Senator Jacko arrived at the meeting at this time.)
Senator Kelly stressed that grant funding would go a lot
further if the match is 50/50 rather than 70/30. Senator
Rieger concurred in comments by Co-chair Frank that even
with the proposed matching grant program, designated grants
would continue to be made. He then voiced his belief that
the higher the local match requirement, the greater the
disparity between municipalities favored by the direct grant
approach and those not favored by appropriations flowing
through a mechanism similar to the proposed bill. He voiced
skepticism as to how the program is likely to work. Some
communities will be funded 100%, while others will match
70/30. A 50/50 match would increase that disparity.
Co-chair Pearce directed that the roll be called on adoption
of Amendment No. 1:
YEAS: Kerttula, Rieger, Jacko, Frank, Pearce
NAYS: Sharp, Kelly
The motion CARRIED on a vote of 5 to 2, and Amendment No. 1
was ADOPTED.
Co-chairman Pearce called for additional amendments. None
were offered. She then directed that Amendments 1 and 2 be
incorporated within a draft CSSB 88 (Finance).
The Co-chair next referenced two fiscal notes from the Dept.
of Community and Regional Affairs. The first seeks an
accounting clerk III and a grant administrator III as well
as associated computer equipment. An additional $10.0 is
sought, on the second note, for regional offices. A note
from the Dept. of Administration requests four additional
positions with associated travel, contractual, and
equipment. The Co-chair expressed concern regarding the
magnitude of the fiscal notes. She then questioned whether
the grant process within the proposed bill would be that
much more onerous than current capital grants.
Shelby Stastny again came before committee accompanied by
JACK FARGNOLI, Office of Management and Budget. Mr.
Fargnoli explained that meetings with Dept. of
Administration staff indicate that past budget reductions
have left the department only one person to deal with
municipal grants under Title 37. There are no auditors, and
accounting clerks serve a number of sections. The proposed
bill would impose a new work load on the department. In
addition, it calls for extension of matching requirements to
existing programs. Individual accounts will have to be set
up for all municipalities under the matching grants portion
of the bill, and verifications and determinations will be
required for match criteria under the existing municipal
grant program. That creates need for an auditor. The
department does not have one. An accounting clerk would
also be needed to split his or her time between the two
programs.
End, SFC-93, #57, Side 1
Begin, SFC-93, #57, Side 2
Mr. Fargnoli attested to understaffing at both accounting
and supervisory levels.
Co-chair Pearce questioned need for involvement of both the
Dept. of Administration and Dept. of Community and Regional
Affairs. Mr. Fargnoli explained that both department are
utilized under the present program. Efficiencies are to be
gained by having the new capital matching grants program
parallel the existing structure. Mr. Stastny commented that
one of the programs functions as a matching grants program
under municipal assistance while the other issues from
revenue sharing. Senator Kerttula suggested that the two
could be combined.
In response to a question from Co-chair Pearce, Mr. Fargnoli
explained that the Dept. of Administration would be
administering the new matching grants, created by SB 88, for
municipalities as well as extension of matching requirements
to the existing municipal grant program. The Dept. of
Community and Regional Affairs would provide parallel
administration for unincorporated communities.
Discussion followed between the Co-chair and Mr. Fargnoli
regarding existing staff at both departments. Mr. Fargnoli
noted considerable difference between Dept. of
Administration dealings with municipalities having
institutional governments and interaction of the Dept. of
Community and Regional Affairs with unincorporated
communities that do not have access to personnel, financial
resources for development of grant proposals, financial
planning, economic development, etc. Co-chair Pearce
suggested that, with that in mind, one would expect the
fiscal note from the Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs
to be larger than that from the Dept. of Administration.
However, the reverse is true. Mr. Fargnoli acknowledged
that were the programs starting from scratch, the request
from the Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs would be
the larger. At the present time, Dept. of Administration
staff is maxed out in terms of what it can handle. An
integer increase in the number of positions is thus needed.
Co-chair Pearce queried members regarding action on the
fiscal notes. Senator Kelly questioned need for staff
increases at the Dept. of Administration. Co-chair Pearce
requested that Senator Jacko and Co-chair Frank, chairmen of
the respective budget subcommittees, review the notes and
report back to committee at the next meeting. She then
directed that the bill be HELD in committee pending that
review and preparation of Senate Finance Committee fiscal
notes for the departments, if necessary.
Discussion followed between Co-chair Frank and Mr. Stastny
concerning the flow of funding to nonprofit groups and
percentage allowances for administrative costs. Mr. Stastny
noted that the 10% administrative allowance was incorporated
within the bill by Senator Phillips when the legislation was
before Senate Community and Regional Affairs. The intent
was to prohibit municipalities from charging more than 10%.
Co-chair Frank questioned whether an administrative fee was
appropriate in situations where a municipality merely acts
as a pass through from the state to a nonprofit or other
grantee.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS came before committee and cited an
example where municipal engineering and administrative costs
on a highway project within his district utilized $450.0 of
the $1.1 million project. Both Senator Kelly and Co-chair
Frank voiced need to establish the 10% administrative fee as
the maximum rather than the rule.
Further discussion of engineering/architectural and
administrative costs followed. Co-chair Frank voiced need
to distinguish between pass-through situations and true
administrative services. Co-chair Pearce asked that Co-
chair Frank and staff work on proposed amendments. Senator
Kelly suggested that the committee provide guidelines but
leave the ultimate decision to administrators of individual
grants. Co-chair Frank concurred in the need to provide
more direction. Co-chair Pearce suggested that a letter of
intent might be appropriate.
Senator Kerttula inquired about savings that might derive
from combining the grant program within a single department
rather than the present division between two agencies. Mr.
Stastny agreed that perhaps some savings could be achieved.
He questioned, however, whether the Dept. of Community and
Regional Affairs has authority to make grants to
municipalities.
Co-chair Frank asked how legislative designation portions of
the bill would work. Mr. Stastny acknowledged that the
provisions represent a change in the current bill over the
one introduced in the past legislature. He then explained
that communities would be required to submit projects to the
Office of Management and Budget for inclusion within the
budget. The legislature would either approve and fund or
deny approval as it reviews and acts on the capital budget.
Senator Kelly asked if the administration would only include
70/30 projects rather than 100% matches in the program. Mr.
Stastny said that is how the capital budget had evolved in
the past. The legislature then adds direct grants in the
process of its budget review. Water and sewer projects
within the Dept. of Environmental Conservation and school
projects in the Dept. of Education would be requested per
the current process.
Further discussion followed between Co-chair Frank and Mr.
Stastny concerning inclusion of community projects in
priority order. Mr. Stastny explained that legal opinion
indicates that the legislation cannot direct the Governor to
fund projects in priority order. The bill thus states that
the Governor should present them by priority or submit
information explaining why they are not so listed. The
Office of Management and Budget expects that they will be in
priority order.
Co-chair Pearce noted the newly enacted requirement that
legislation impacting municipalities carry a municipal
fiscal note. The note from the Dept. of Community and
Regional Affairs appears to be a better fit for the
appropriation bill rather than SB 88. She then asked that
the department provide a municipal fiscal note indicating
the percentage impact on each community rather than the
specific $65 million dollar amount set forth on the present
note.
Co-chair Pearce directed that the meeting be briefly
recessed prior to proceeding to discussion of SB 128.
RECESS - 10:00 A.M.
RECONVENE - 10:05 A.M.
SENATE BILL NO. 128
An Act relating to legislative audits.
Co-chair Pearce directed that SB 128 be brought before
committee, referenced the Senate State Affairs committee
substitute for the bill, and noted the presence of Senator
Phillips, the Legislative Auditor, and staff from the Office
of Management and Budget.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS again came before committee. He
explained that the bill was introduced at the request of the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee. It provides
systematic follow-up procedures for recommendations made by
the Legislative Auditor. In the past, when audits were
conducted, there was no formal follow-up to ensure that
recommendations for accounting or procedural improvements
were effected.
RANDY WELKER, Legislative Auditor, next came before
committee. He explained that the legislation provides
recognition that ultimate responsibility for implementation
of audit recommendations rests with the administration. To
enhance implementation, a structured follow-up processes is
needed. The proposed bill would effect that process. It
allows the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee to select
which items warrant follow-up. It would then become OMB's
responsibility to undertake follow-up on those items,
resolve differences of opinion between the agency and the
Legislative Audit Division, and report the status of the
recommendations to LBA.
Senator Rieger noted language indicating that the committee
could direct the Office of Management and Budget to continue
to monitor implementation. He then asked if the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee actually has that power. Mr.
Welker explained that some audit recommendations may take
time to implement. The foregoing language recognizes that
"not everything can be satisfied in a one-year time . . . ."
The Office of Management and Budget is thus to continue
monitoring as the recommendation is implemented. Senator
Rieger noted that direction from committee would not carry
the force of law. Mr. Welker concurred.
At the request of Co-chair Pearce, Mr. Welker provided a
step-by-step description of action under various sections of
the bill, using recommendations from the recent audit of the
Division of Elections as an example.
SHELBY STASTNY again came before committee accompanied by
GARY ANDERSON, Director, Division of Audit and Management
Services, Office of Management and Budget, came before
committee. Mr. Anderson said that the bill presents
difficulties for OMB. He explained that, on one hand, the
office is sympathetic to legislative concerns. The problem
is that the legislation requires the Office of Management
and Budget to perform follow-up functions. OMB is
approximately one-third the size of the Legislative Audit
Division. Major resources would have to be devoted to the
effort. The executive branch already performs follow-up on
audits conducted by the administration. Mr. Anderson then
suggested that Legislative Audit perform follow-up
procedures for its audits as well. He noted that many
audits are complex. For OMB to follow up on recommendations
made by another branch of government would be difficult.
OMB staff would need access to Legislative Audit work papers
and have to develop an understanding of the recommendations
to provide implementation oversight. That is not the most
efficient or effective means of follow up. In his closing
comments, Mr. Anderson expressed OMB willingness to work
with Legislative Audit on oversight.
Mr. Stastny concurred in remarks by Mr. Anderson. He said
an even more overriding concern involves the issue of
separation of powers. There is a reason for separation of
legislative functions from those of the administration.
Senator Phillips said he had not before been made aware of
OMB concerns.
Co-chair Pearce called for additional questions or testimony
relating to the legislation. She then queried members on
disposition of the bill. Senator Rieger MOVED, for the
purpose of discussion, that SB 128 (STA) pass from
committee. Co-chair Frank OBJECTED, seeking clarification
of concerns relating to separation of powers. Senator
Phillips said that he foresaw no territorial domain problems
occasioned by the bill. He noted that the legislature
establishes public policy, and the burden is upon the
executive branch to execute that policy.
End, SFC-93, #57, Side 2
Begin, SFC-93, #59, Side 1
Co-chair Frank WITHDREW his OBJECTION. CSSB 128 (STA) was
REPORTED OUT of committee with a zero Senate State Affairs
Committee fiscal note for the Office of the Governor/OMB.
Co-chair Pearce and Senators Jacko, Rieger, Sharp, and
Kerttula signed the committee report "no rec." Co-chair
Frank signed "do pass."
[NOTE - The foregoing action on CSSB 128 (STA) was rescinded
4/13/93. See committee minutes of 4/13/93 and 4/14/93]
SENATE BILL NO. 129
An Act relating to the state's chief procurement
officer.
Co-chair Pearce directed that SB 129 be brought on for
discussion. SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS again came before
committee. He explained that the legislation was introduced
at the request of the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee. It responds to past problems surrounding
issuance of an $800.0 sole-source contract. RANDY WELKER,
Legislative Auditor, concurred in comments regarding the
noted sole-source contract, but he advised that it is not
the only example of an improperly entered contract. In
examining the root of the problem, it was determined that
when the procurement code was established, the chief
procurement officer was envisioned as an autonomous position
with statutory protection. The position was to act
independently of agencies doing the contracting in the
approval or denial of contracts. That position has not
functioned as envisioned.
The proposed bill provides more autonomy by changing the
position to a six-year term to ensure overlap from one
administration to another. It further provides statutory
salary protection to deter an administration from
retaliating against the procurement officer by salary
manipulation.
For sole-source contracts, the chief procurement officer is
required to independently examine the facts and determine
whether the procurement is eligible for sole-source. At the
present time, requests for sole-source contracts are
reviewed by the procurement officer and approved based only
on information provided by the agency seeking the
procurement.
In response to an inquiry from Senator Kerttula, Mr. Welker
said that, per the procurement code, the chief procurement
officer can only be removed for cause. Since cause is not
necessarily defined, that aspect remains in question.
DUGAN PETTY, Director, Division of General Services, Dept.
of Administration, came before committee, voicing support
for the bill. He said the department believes the bill will
improve state procurement. Several sections seek to improve
efficiencies and standardize the treatment of procurements.
The department supports those streamlining efforts.
Increased effort and review required of the chief
procurement officer are offset by increased accountability
and enhanced integrity of the process.
Mr. Petty directed attention to Sec. 5 and registered
concern regarding emergency procurements. He cited current
statutory provisions and noted that revisions in the
proposed bill would remove an agency procurement officer
from making that determination and vest it totally in the
chief procurement officer. It allows the chief procurement
officer to delegate that duty only when he or she does not
have sufficient time to make such a determination. Mr.
Petty voiced his understanding that the department may
interpret Sec. 5 broadly enough to allow it to encompass not
only the chief procurement officer's written determination,
but the process of gathering and submitting facts. If that
could not be done within a 72-hour period, the power of
determination would be delegated, in advance, to the agency
that might incur the emergency. Mr. Petty said the
department would have no objection to Section 5, if the
foregoing represents an acceptable interpretation. Mr.
Welker subsequently concurred in Mr. Petty's interpretation
of Section 5 and voiced hope that the department would
develop regulations further defining procedures.
Senator Rieger directed attention of Section 9 and inquired
concerning provisions exempting contracts between the Dept.
of Law and contract attorneys from provisions of the
procurement code. Mr. Petty said that a statewide
procurement audit recommended that selection and contracts
for special prosecutors be exempted from the procurement
process. Issues surrounding these arrangements are often
confidential. A public procurement process negates that
confidentiality.
Discussion followed between Senator Rieger and Mr. Petty
regarding cost-reimbursement contracts. Mr. Petty noted
that a variety of cost-reimbursement contracts are
legitimate, effective contract tools. The administration
feels agencies should have the latitude to use the form of
contract that most effectively meets needs. The proposed
change eliminates need for advance determination that a
cost-reimbursement contract would be the most efficient
means of contracting.
Co-chair Pearce called for additional questions or testimony
on the bill. None were forthcoming. Co-chair Frank stated
need to offer an amendment relating to the leasing budget
within the Dept. of Administration. He referenced
department complaints that the division does not have the
ability to renegotiate existing leases. That portion of the
procurement system fails to operate properly. He explained
that he had been working with both the department and bill
drafters to develop language that would allow the department
to renegotiate with an existing lessor. The initial
reaction from the department has been that a savings would
occur. Co-chair Frank asked that the proposed bill be HELD
in committee pending development of that language. Senator
Phillips advised that he had no problem with inclusion of
that effort within the bill. Senator Kerttula asked that
renegotiation provisions also apply to the legislature.
SENATE BILL NO. 148
An Act relating to the Alaska Railroad Corporation; and
providing for an effective date.
Co-chair Pearce directed that SB 148 be brought on for
discussion and referenced a draft CSSB 148 (Finance) (8-
LS0583\X, Utermohle 4/12/93). Co-chair Frank MOVED for
adoption of CSSB 148 (Finance) as a working document. No
objection having been raised, CSSB 148 (Finance) was
ADOPTED.
DAVID SKIDMORE, aide to Senator Frank, came before
committee. He explained that the adopted Senate Finance
Committee version makes seven changes in the Senate
Transportation version:
1. Deletes provisions relating to municipal property
taxation.
2. Combines both qualifications for railroad
experience into one director. One member of the
board must have either ten years
railroad management experience or have
been an executive director of a U.S.
railroad.
3. Creates a requirement for a director that
represents the current executive management of the
Alaska Railroad.
4. Provides that the next opening on the board shall
be
filled by a director who has the outside railroad
experience called for in No. 2, above.
5. Specifies that meetings of the board where
official corporate action is to be taken shall be
teleconferenced.
6. Clarifies the definition of "nontransportation
activity." The new definition excludes activity
occurring before or subsequent to the
transportation of people or personal
property by the railroad.
7. Provides for participation in the regional land
fill at Nenana.
Co-chair Pearce pointed to the fact that up until the time
Mr. Turpin left the railroad and Mr. Hatfield became CEO,
the railroad had a board member with outside railroad
experience. It was not expected that the director with
outside experience would also end up as chief executive
officer of the railroad.
Co-chair Pearce further spoke to an inequity in original
railroad law in that labor has a seat on the board while
management does not. Mr. Hatfield is presently the CEO, a
board member, and the outside expert. Co-chair Pearce said
she had no problem giving management a seat on the board,
but she said that that representative should not also be the
outside expert. The proposed bill provides a seat for both
management and a director with outside expertise. The
reality of that is that an existing board member (Mr.
Lindsey or Mr. Lounsbury) will have to leave the board this
fall and be replaced with a new member with outside
experience.
Senator Kerttula voiced need for legislation providing for
legislative confirmation of board members.
Mr. Skidmore explained that the railroad reviewed the draft
Senate Finance version of the bill and expressed approval
with the exception of the new definition of
"nontransportation activity." Railroad concern relates to
the following subsections within Sec. 9:
(B) an activity occurring before, or subsequent to
the transportation of people or personal property by the
railroad; or
(C) an activity not
(iii) conducted by the railroad on the date
of
transfer to the state.
The corporation is concerned that instances may arise
involving an activity conducted by the railroad on the date
of transfer which also occurred before, or subsequent to,
the transportation of people or personal property. That
activity would conflict with new bill language.
At the request of Co-chair Frank, MARK HICKEY, lobbyist for
the Alaska Railroad Corporation, came before committee. Co-
chair Frank asked what activities conducted at the time of
transfer might be prohibited by subsection (B), above. Mr.
Hickey pointed to the freight house and drayage operation
the railroad has historically conducted as an example of
conflict between language in subsections (B) and (C). He
further noted that railroad warehousing of freight could
also conflict.
Co-chair Frank noted intent to curtail extension of railroad
activities beyond those related to transportation. He then
asked if the railroad was involved in hotel or lodging
operations prior to transfer to the state. Mr. Hickey said
that railroad operation of the Healy Hotel predates the
transfer.
Mr. Hickey next commented on definitions provided to a work
session of the Senate Transportation Committee. The drafter
at that time, did not include language relating to a value-
added component. Mr. Hickey reiterated that different
interpretations of the foregoing language could occur. He
suggested that he be allowed to work with staff to structure
the language to better define legislative intent. Co-chair
Pearce directed that SB 148 be HELD in committee for that
purpose.
ANNOUNCEMENT
Co-chair Pearce noted that SB 45 (MISC. LAWS RELATING TO
MINORS), held from Saturday's meeting, would be on
tomorrow's schedule.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:15 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|