Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/04/2014 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR9 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SJR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 4, 2014
9:07 a.m.
9:07:52 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Senator Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Gail Fenumiai, Director, Division of Elections, Office of
the Lieutenant Governor; Representative Lora Reinbold;
Daniel Rawlings, Member, National Education Association
(NEA); Irene Matheis, Member, National Education
Association; Valerie Spencer, Member, National Education
Association.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
David Boyle, Self, Anchorage; Tom Fink, Self, Anchorage;
Patrick Shier, Self, Wasilla; Kristina Johannes, Self,
Anchorage; Randy Virgin, Self, Anchorage; Wayne Osky, Self,
Eagle River; Robert Pope, Self, Soldotna; Risti Dugan,
Self, Nenana; Barbara Eaton, Self, Eagle River; Mark
Wiggin, Self, Anchorage; Kathleen Tonn, Self, Anchorage;
Celeste Hodge, Executive Director, Shiloh Community
Development Inc., Anchorage; John Baumeister, Self,
Anchorage; Deborah Brollini, Self, Anchorage; Katherine
Hicks, Self, Anchorage; Maria Rensel, Self, Fairbanks;
Candice Jesclard, Self, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
SJR 9 CONST. AM: EDUCATION FUNDING
SJR 9 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to state aid for education.
9:09:11 AM
GAIL FENUMIAI, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, OFFICE OF
THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, explained the fiscal note. She
stated that the fiscal note was from the Division of
Elections for $1,500. She stated that the cost reflected
the expenses associated with publishing information about
the constitutional amendment in the official election
pamphlet, which was required by statute. She stated that
the $22,000 that was noted in the analysis section would be
required if the constitutional amendment depended on the
division to go to a larger ballot. The $22,000 would cover
the cost of printing.
Senator Hoffman queried what would necessitate the issue
going to the larger paper. Ms. Fenumiai replied that it
would occur if there were a large amount of judges in a
judicial district or if there were a large amount of
constitutional amendments or measures that were appearing
on the general election ballot. She doubted that the larger
ballot would be required, but felt that the information was
necessary just in case.
9:11:22 AM
DAVID BOYLE, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of SJR 9. He felt that the authors of
the Alaska constitution intended no public funds were to
directly benefit religious or private educational
institutions. He expressed frustration with the 1979
supreme court ruling that included the word "indirect" in
regards to funding. He felt that the supreme court took the
legislative prerogative for education away from the
legislature. He remarked that the current discussion would
not occur, had that ruling never taken place. He felt that
SJR 9 made it clear that the Alaska Legislature could make
choices with regard to the education of children in Alaska.
He stressed that the legislature could enact sound public
policy as bounded by the first amendment to the United
States Constitution. He remarked that there were high
number of individuals in Alaska who supported school
choice.
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered if Mr. Boyle had testified
the previous day, but figured out that he had not already
testified.
9:15:37 AM
TOM FINK, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
support of SJR 9. He felt that the resolution would remove
the limit on the legislature to consider all options to
improve K-12 education. He stressed that the resolution
would remove an impediment to good legislation on the
subject. He felt that the resolution must pass in order to
allow change. He remarked that the change would allow
parents to fulfill their duty to raise their children to
become good members of society; and the change would also
allow improvement to K-12 education through choice and
competition. He stated that there had been three statewide
polls over the last three years on this subject. He shared
that all three public showed public support for the
constitutional amendment. He stressed that the main
opposition to the resolution was from the National
Education Association (NEA), which he felt had a monopoly
on K-12 education in Alaska.
9:18:52 AM
PATRICK SHIER, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference),
testified in favor of SJR 9. He stated that he had been
involved in education issues in Alaska for almost three
decades. He stated that he had been a member of various
organizations that worked on behalf of Alaska's school age
children. He stated that his wife was a teacher, and both
of his sons were teachers. He felt that he was intimately
aware of issues that faced local school districts,
teachers, and administrators. He shared an anecdote about
how some small schools had opened to serve the needs of
students that were living just outside of some school
districts near Anchorage.
9:21:53 AM
KRISTINA JOHANNES, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of SJR 9. She felt that the language
in the current constitution was anti-Catholic. He felt that
the language derived from an animus against her religious
ancestors. She quoted the language that would be in the
constitution, if the constitutional amendment were
ratified.
9:23:54 AM
RANDY VIRGIN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to SJR 9. He shared that he was a parent of
two students in the Anchorage School District. He stated
that his sons had been able to apply to several different
schools in the district, and never felt that his choices
were restricted. He remarked that he was very satisfied
with alternative options. He felt that there was not enough
funding already for schools, so the finance options should
not be expanded to include private schools. He shared that,
in his research, the largest private school in Alaska was
the Anchorage Baptist Temple. He was not in support of
diverting public money to religious schools at the expense
of public funding.
9:26:21 AM
WAYNE OSKY, SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference),
testified in support of SJR 9. He felt that parents were
frustrated with the current system, and hoped that the
legislation would pass to ease that frustration.
9:27:12 AM
DANIEL RAWLINGS, MEMBER, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
(NEA), testified in opposition to SJR 9. He was in a
teacher in the Anchorage School District. He stressed that
he was in support of school choice, but against the school
voucher system. He shared that he had attended private
catholic schools in Ohio in his youth. He stated that
Cleveland, Ohio was a case study for school vouchers. He
stated that Cleveland starting accepting school vouchers in
the late 1990s, and he graduated from high school in 2003.
He observed that the school voucher system in Ohio had
negative consequences. He stated that the system in
Cleveland became a "voucher plus" system. He felt that the
school vouchers did not even come close to covering the
cost of tuition, so the schools would not make enough money
to stay open.
Senator Olson asked for an example of a negative
consequence of vouchers, understanding that Alaska had a 30
percent dropout rate in the public schools. Mr. Rawlings
responded that there was not a 30 percent dropout rate in
the private schools in Cleveland, Ohio. He stressed that
parents of private school children were actively involved
in their child's education. He felt that the tuition in
most private schools was significantly higher than a
voucher would be, so the voucher system did not enhance the
choices of Alaska parents.
Senator Olson wondered if that was the only negative thing
that Mr. Rawlings could think of. Mr. Rawlings responded
that the voucher system would take money away from the
public schools, so the public schools would be weakened
from lack of funds.
Senator Dunleavy wondered if Mr. Rawlings thought that
children would leave the public school from the passage of
the legislation, and if so, to what degree. Mr. Rawlings
did not know, but felt that there would be a small
percentage of students that would move on to the private
schools. He remarked that there would be cheap, private
education systems that would sprout up and do not produce
the same quality education as other private schools.
Co-Chair Kelly remarked that the committee should refrain
from asking too many questions of testifiers, because he
did not want to intimidate the testifiers.
9:33:38 AM
IRENE MATHEIS, MEMBER, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
spoke against SJR 9. She stated that the school that she
worked at was a Title 1 school, with 600 students. She felt
that there was a safety issue related to the number of
students and the number of teachers. She stressed that
there were many budget decreases in the state that had
resulted in layoffs of teachers, so diverting money to
private schools would be detrimental to the public schools.
9:34:53 AM
VALERIE SPENCER, MEMBER, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
testified in opposition to SJR 9. She stressed that the
benefit of living in the United States was the availability
of the best education possible. She was in supportive of
private and religious institutions, but felt that they did
not offer choice for everyone. She stressed that the
private and religious schools had admissions policies that
offer admissions for some students, but were not required
to admit every applicant. She shared that she was a single
mother and a non-tenured teacher, and made twice the per
capita income of the average Alaska. She stressed that,
even with $6,000 voucher, she would still not be able to
afford to send one of her children to a typical private
school in Anchorage. She felt that many other parents would
be in a similar situation, and therefore the school voucher
system did not offer a real choice for parents and
students.
9:37:37 AM
ROBERT POPE, SELF, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), testified
in opposition to SJR 9. He stated that he and his family
were lifelong Alaskans. He felt that the founders of the
constitution had extensive discussions regarding whether or
not public funds should be used in private schools. He felt
that the focus should be on the issues within public
education, rather than moving that money to private
schools.
9:39:40 AM
RISTI DUGAN, SELF, NENANA (via teleconference), spoke in
support of SJR 9. She felt that there should be more
parental support of students and schools, but she did not
feel that the parental support would occur in the status
quo. She stressed that she wanted the best choice for her
children's education, but did not feel that it was related
to public funding. She felt that competition may encourage
the public schools to enhance their performance.
9:40:53 AM
BARBARA EATON, SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference),
testified in support of SJR 9. She felt that the federal
government was continually restricting Alaskans. She felt
that choice was a part of the American and Alaskan
tradition. She remarked that all of Alaskans were affected
by the issue, so all of Alaskans should have the
opportunity to vote on the amendment. She felt that any
individual who did not support the resolution would be on
the wrong side of history, because she felt that all
Alaskans were in support of this issue. She remarked that
school choice would not make education more expensive.
9:42:47 AM
MARK WIGGIN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to SJR 9. He believed that the resolution was a
way to force him to subsidize his money for religious and
private academies. He felt that it was a levied tax in
support of religious schools. He cared about public
schools, and shared that his children had a very positive
experience in the Anchorage public school system. He
understood that Alaska schools were not perfect, but they
were very good. He felt that diverting money to religious
schools would force residents to either pay higher taxes or
sacrifice the vitality of the public schools.
9:45:38 AM
KATHLEEN TONN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of SJR 9. She stated that she was a
member of the Anchorage Baptist Temple. She shared that she
was in support of the resolution, because her children had
some very negative experiences in the public school system.
Her children had a principal and some peers who had died
while they were in school. She also felt public funds
should be used toward religious schools, because she felt
that tax payer money was also being used to pay for
abortions.
9:49:48 AM
CELESTE HODGE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SHILOH COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT INC., ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to SJR 9. She stated that the Shiloh Community
Development Incorporated was a local non-profit
organization that empowered youth, minorities, and the
disadvantaged. She explained that the organization's goal
was to enhance the quality of life for the less fortunate
by providing transitional assistance; economical and
educational opportunities; job search support; health
education, prevention, and wellness programs; and youth
mentoring. She spoke very strongly against SJR 9, because
she felt it could be used as a tool to discriminate.
9:51:40 AM
JOHN BAUMEISTER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in support of SJR 9. He felt that the parents were
ultimately responsible for the child's education. He
remarked that the success of a child was directly
correlated to how involved the parent is in the child's
education. He felt that any tool that could be given to
parents to enhance the child's education was positive in
the long term. He stressed that the voucher would only be a
percentage of what the expense of just one child. He felt
that because the voucher was only a percentage, there would
be more money per student in the public school system.
9:53:49 AM
DEBORAH BROLLINI, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified against SJR 9. She stated that her children had
attended both public and private schools. She did not
believe that there should be a constitutional amendment in
support of funding private school education, because the
children in rural villages and districts would not have the
option to attend private schools. She wondered where the
families in extremely rural communities would use the
vouchers. She also expressed concerns about the lack of
standards and supervision in private schools. She felt that
her son had been academically and emotionally harmed while
he attended a private elementary school.
9:55:50 AM
KATHERINE HICKS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in support of SJR 9. She remarked that Alaskans do
not pay taxes, rather Alaska receives money from the oil
companies. She felt that educators were blaming parents for
the lack of participation in the failing schools in Alaska,
but the educators were now refusing to let the parents be
involved in the education choices of their children. She
felt that the teachers should either take responsibility
for what they were producing, or the teachers needed to
allow parents the choice to be involved in their children's
education.
9:57:44 AM
MARIA RENSEL, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in favor of SJR 9. She stated that she was raised
Catholic. She echoed the sentiments of the previous
testifiers who spoke in support of the resolution,
especially the comments of David Boyle and Tom Fink. She
felt that the resolution gave the people of Alaska a voice
in making the decision to remove the impediments to good
legislation. She stressed that monopolies, like the public
schools, end up keeping the costs high. She felt that the
vouchers would have a positive effect on state budgets for
education, because some money was left behind in the public
schools.
10:00:31 AM
CANDICE JESCLARD, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of SJR 9. She felt that the citizens
of Alaska should be given the opportunity to decide if the
language of the constitution should remain the same. She
felt weary of a judge making the decision that she believed
parents should be more involved in. She stated that she had
five grandchildren that were currently attending school in
the Anchorage School District, and she hoped that the bill
would pass so Alaskans could vote and make their own choice
in the future of Alaskan children.
Co-Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony.
10:03:58 AM
Senator Dunleavy stated that SJR 9, if passed by both
bodies of the legislature, places a constitutional
amendment before the voters in the general election in the
fall of 2014. This ballot proposal provides voters a chance
to amend the Alaska Constitution to allow the use of public
money for the benefit of all Alaskans seeking
educational/training aid, regardless of whether individuals
enroll in public or private institutions. Currently the
Alaska Constitution prohibits the use of public funds for
the direct benefit of any private educational institution.
The courts have determined that this ban extends to state
funds being allotted to individual Alaskans who choose to
attend a private school. Meanwhile an increasing number of
Alaskans are questioning the constitutionality of the long-
standing practice of giving educational scholarships/grants
to adults for educational and training purposes while
denying children the same funding opportunities. Passage of
SJR 9 clarifies the question on the constitutionality of
current educational practices. More than that, the ballot
question allows the voters to decide whether to maintain or
abolish the restrictions on the use of public dollars for
the education of children. SJR 9 gives the voters the power
to decide what is right for them, their families and the
State of Alaska. It is important to note that even with the
adoption of this constitutional amendment by a majority of
voters, the Legislature still needs to have a robust
discussion on how to go forward. These deliberations will
occur before any Alaskan child receives state funds to
attend a private educational institution. The passage of
SJR 9 allows these discussions to begin.
10:13:56 AM
Senator Dunleavy stressed that the issue should be focused
on and determined by all Alaskans. He remarked that the
choice should be made by all Alaskans.
Co-Chair Meyer queried Senator Dunleavy's background in the
education system. Senator Dunleavy responded that he was a
graduate of public schools; he attended both state and
private colleges; he received his master's degree at UAF;
he had been a teacher, assistant principal, principal,
director of various departments, assistant superintendent,
and superintendent; he had been both a school board member
and school board president in the Matsu; and a former
member of the NEA.
Senator Olson felt that there may be some people in rural
Alaska who may not be able to make the choice on how to
vote on the issue, because they were unable to become
educated on the subject. Senator Dunleavy replied that
those people should be given the opportunity to vote on the
issue.
10:18:55 AM
Senator Olson stressed that he is a representative of the
people of Alaska, so his constituents had entrusted him to
make an educated decision. Senator Dunleavy responded that
he was given the opportunity to make the choice to allow
Alaskans to discuss the issue.
Senator Olson felt that constitutional amendments and
ballot intiatives were different ways to determine what
Alaskans desire. He expressed concern regarding the high
school graduation rate in the state. He felt that should be
the main focus of the conversation. Senator Dunleavy
responded that if the graduation did not improve and had a
harmful impact on the state, he would engage in that
conversation.
Co-Chair Kelly felt that the state needed to have a
conversation regarding education. He felt that special
interest groups often dominated the conversation. He
remarked that there was more to education than the base
student allocation (BSA). He felt that the teachers in
public schools were very good, but stressed that the system
needed reform. He did not like the continual conversation
regarding increasing the BSA. He appreciated that the
conversation has changed to reform. He felt that the
constitutional amendment spurred conversation about reform.
10:25:09 AM
Senator Bishop agreed that the discussion was important. He
felt that the legislature needed to recognize the problems
and solve those issues before the need for a constitutional
amendment.
Senator Hoffman shared that he had many concerns, which he
would share at a later date.
SJR 9 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
10:27:07 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:27 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJR 9 - opposition - Barry-Garland.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Dubber.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Fresco.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Genson.pdf |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Hensel.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - O'Brien.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Rein.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Valerie.pdf |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Wertheimer.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Mobley.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Tappel.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - NANA Corp..pdf |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - ADN Article.pdf |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9\ |
| SJR 9 - opposition - AFN.pdf |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Brennan.pdf |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - News-Miner Article.pdf |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Rhodes.pdf |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Tanana Chiefs Conference.pdf |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Nienhueser.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Church.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Hill.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Hayes.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Hart.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Baumeisters.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Cobaugh.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Mayton 2.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Mayton.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Miljure.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Basham.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Bemben.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Bernard.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - March.pdf |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Rudig.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Sullivan.pdf |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Wojtalewicz.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Goode.doc |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Sanders.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Biggs.doc |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Sanders.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Ames.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposisition - Bean.pdf |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Arians.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposisition - Bean.pdf |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Arians 2.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Finn.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - hardrichert.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Highland.docx |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Nelson.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Rainey.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Hart.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 -support - Saunders.doc |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - support - Ames.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Bogan.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Matthews.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Rozen.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Scarbrough.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Stoddard.msg |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - de la Cruz.pdf |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |
| SJR 9 - opposition - Jardin.pdf |
SFIN 2/4/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 9 |