Legislature(1999 - 2000)
05/13/1999 01:30 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
May 13, 1999
1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Johnny Ellis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator John Torgerson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 114
"An Act relating to impersonating a public servant."
-MOVED CSSB 114(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 34(FIN)
"An Act relating to the crime of failure to report the commission
or attempted commission of certain crimes against children."
-MOVED CSHB 34(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 225(JUD)
"An Act relating to election campaigns and legislative ethics; and
providing for an effective date."
-HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 162
"An Act relating to the rule against perpetuities, nonvested
property interests, and powers of appointment; and providing for an
effective date."
-HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 29(JUD)
Relating to the division of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
-MOVED CSHJR 29(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 114 - See Judiciary minutes dated 3-29-99, 4-12-99, and 5-10-99.
HB 34 - No previous Senate action.
SB 162 - See Judiciary Committee minutes dated 5-3-99, 5-11-99 and
5-12-99.
HB 225 - No previous Senate action.
HJR 29 - No previous Senate action.
WITNESS REGISTER
Jerry Luckhaupt
Division of Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about CSHB 34(FIN)
Representative Fred Dyson
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 34
Blair McCune
Public Defender Agency
Department of Administration
900 W 5th Ave., Ste 200
Anchorage, AK 99501-2090
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to CSHB 34(FIN)
Anne Carpeneti
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested changes to CSHB 34(FIN)
Cory Winchell
Staff to Representative Kott
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified for the sponsor of HJR 29
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-33, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to
order at 1:30 p.m. Present were Senators Halford, Donley, Ellis,
and Chairman Taylor. The first order of business to come before
the committee was SB 114.
SB 114-IMPERSONATE POLICE/EMERGENCY VEHICLE
SENATOR ELLIS moved that the committee rescind its previous action
in adopting the committee substitute for SB 114 for the purpose of
a corrective amendment. There being no objection, the motion
carried.
SENATOR ELLIS explained that Mr. Luckhaupt brought his concerns
about the committee substitute to his staff's attention. He
prepared a new committee substitute that corrects the problem.
SENATOR ELLIS moved to adopt the original defective amendment.
There was objection to the motion. The motion failed with Senators
Ellis, Donley, Halford and Taylor voting "nay."
SENATOR ELLIS moved to adopt the Senate Judiciary Committee
substitute for SB 114 (Luckhaupt 4/23, Version G). There being no
objection, the motion carried.
MR. JERRY LUCKHAUPT, legislative counsel and drafter of the
committee substitute, informed committee members they had just
adopted the incorrect committee substitute.
SENATOR ELLIS moved to rescind the committee's motion to adopt the
committee substitute to SB 114 (Luckhaupt 4/23, Version G).
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that Senator Ellis's previous amendment
presented two problems. First, it is worded in the present tense
so it would allow an affirmative defense to someone who was not a
member of a community patrol at the time of the offense but who
subsequently joined one after he/she was cited for a violation.
He stated he believes the intent of the amendment was to allow an
affirmative defense to those who belonged to a community patrol at
the time of the offense. The second problem is associated with
what is an organized community patrol within a community or
municipality. Many problems have occurred over the years with
which groups are recognized as community councils by a city. In
some instances, dueling community councils were formed, each one
asserting that it is the community council for the town. The
Legislature has, for the most part, stayed out of those arguments.
The problem with the amendment is that any group can say it is a
community patrol for a particular area. He addressed that problem
in the new committee substitute by inserting language that says one
is a member of a community patrol organized with, or in cooperation
with, the municipality or a community council that is established
under municipal ordinance or charter. Therefore the municipality
will decide who the community councils are. That comports with the
two instances that he is aware of in which the Legislature dealt
with community councils in statute; one dealing with citing of
prison facilities, the other allowing communities to comment on
proposed public works projects. Both statutes refer to community
councils established under municipal charter or ordinance.
Number 120
SENATOR ELLIS moved to adopt the draft, labeled Luckhaupt 5/12
Version K, as the Senate Judiciary committee substitute for SB 114.
There being no objection, the motion carried.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Senator Ellis if the new committee substitute
addresses Senator Phillips' concern. SENATOR ELLIS said it does as
best as he can tell. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he does not want to
interfere with the very active community involvement in Senator
Phillips' area.
SENATOR ELLIS moved CSSB 114(JUD) from committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, the motion carried.
HB 34-REPORTING CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, prime sponsor of the measure, gave the
following overview of the bill. As this country has moved from
common law and precedent to statute law over the last 130 years,
the duty to assist has largely disappeared from our legal system.
When a girl was molested and murdered in a Las Vegas restroom in
the recent past, others knew what was going on and did nothing to
assist her. Eleven other states have some form of duty to assist
legislation in place or in process. HB 34 is an attempt to
establish a duty to aid, and if one cannot assist the victim,
he/she is required to report the offense to someone who can. HB 34
allows a positive defense for not assisting if the observer fears
for his/her safety. Critics have cautioned that HB 34 might have
a chilling effect on people's willingness to come forth as
witnesses. He disagrees and believes that through judicial
discretion, this law will rarely be adjudicated.
SENATOR DONLEY commented that committee members spent a lot of time
on the misprision bill, especially on the provision that a person
could be imprisoned for up to one year when he/she did not commit
a crime but just failed to report a crime. He said he remains
concerned that HB 34 makes the offense a class A misdemeanor.
Number 200
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied the bill originally set the offense as
a class C felony, which would have carried a penalty harsher than
that for the actual crime committed. He stated as a professional
mariner, he is required to go to the rescue of vessels in distress
under penalty of law. He noted aviators, police, fire, and
military personnel have the same requirement, and that the Alaska
Legislature enacted a law which makes it a misdemeanor to not go to
the aid of a policeman in distress who requests help. He
maintained precedent exists in federal and state law for the duty
to assist. He asserted that not going to the aid of a child who is
being raped or murdered is morally wrong. He added that Senator
Pearce introduced a similar bill; he and she agreed prior to the
session to work both of them through the process. He chose to
limit his bill to crimes against children because he believes the
sense of responsibility for a helpless other is greatly enhanced
when a child is being maltreated by an adult.
SENATOR DONLEY remarked that he wants to make this legislation work
but hard questions remain. He asked how one would deal with a case
in which a person heard from another that a crime was taking place:
would they be considered a criminal because they have second-hand
knowledge that a crime may have been committed?
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON answered that a provision on page 1, line 8,
limits the requirement to witnesses.
Number 252
SENATOR HALFORD asked if anyone heard the discussion on the issue
of self incrimination during the hearing on Senator Pearce's bill
[SB 5].
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said it appears part of that issue is addressed on
page 2 of HB 34, in which the requirement does not apply to a
person who feels he/she is at risk if they reveal information.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Luckhaupt or Ms. Carpeneti to
address that question. He stated HB 34 will only apply in extreme
cases. He noted he believes that our laws, in addition to
restraining conduct, are a way to restate our cultural values.
Number 270
MR. JERRY LUCKHAUPT, legislative counsel, explained the self
incrimination issue is dealt with in HB 34 in the same way it was
dealt with in Senator Pearce's bill. HB 34 requires reporting by
someone who witnesses a crime being committed by another person.
The fact that the offender does not have to report eliminates any
possibility of infringement upon a person's right to remain silent.
SENATOR HALFORD asked about the relationship of this bill to
accessory before or after the fact, or other laws that might be
parallel prosecutions.
MR. LUCKHAUPT asked Senator Halford to elaborate.
SENATOR HALFORD noted a person has a right not to do something if
it would tend to incriminate that person on any legal standard or
anything to do with the charge. For example, he questioned whether
a person who is drunk in public could refuse to report something as
horrible as a rape or murder because that person is trying to
protect himself from being charged with public drunkenness.
MR. LUCKHAUPT replied that is an interesting question because even
though the Court of Appeals ruled in two instances that Mr.
Hazelwood could not be convicted of discharging oil, the Alaska
Supreme Court twice reversed that Court and said he could be based
on the reporting statute, even though that requirement exposed him
to criminal liability. The evidence obtained to convict him of
discharging oil was obtained because of his report. In some ways,
even if a person is an accessory before or after the fact, that
person still has a right to argue to the court that their failure
to report was protected because they would have exposed themselves
to other criminal liabilities.
SENATOR HALFORD said he is not sure the bill can be amended to fix
that. He said what gave him the most grief about SB 5 was the
requirement that a parent report a crime against his/her child
which would target the parent as a potential witness. He stated
the self incrimination question will substantially limit the effect
of the bill.
MR.LUCKHAUPT responded that Representative Dyson and his staff have
not been too concerned about making sure they provide for all of
the possible permutations and ensure that everyone on the fringes
can be prosecuted. They are more concerned with catching the more
egregious cases and reaching conduct like the case in Nevada that
was not prosecutable. He disagrees with Mr. McCune's assessment
that the same conduct that occurred in Nevada could have been
prosecuted in Alaska. In Alaska statute regarding being an
accessory after the fact, the person must intend to aid the person
in getting away with the crime. He repeated that the intent of
Representative Dyson's staff is to reach the egregious conduct and
to encourage people to report, especially when the crime is
occurring. This may discourage some reports, in that people who do
not report at the time may not come forward after the fact because
they fear prosecution.
SENATOR HALFORD said a person would have to be given immunity
otherwise the late report would trigger the self incrimination
protection. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON answered that is true, except
there is the defense of fear of harm or that the person was not
aware at the time that a crime was being committed. He said his
guess is that the person would be offered immunity.
SENATOR HALFORD noted a horrible result could occur if a person was
given immunity early in the case but come to find out that person
committed the offense.
Number 376
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON responded every summer he hears a distress
signal on the radio while he is fishing. If he did not respond, he
could be prosecuted. He said our culture has decided that he has
a responsibility to rescue adults in a boat, so it can surely
decide that adults are required to help a child who is being raped
or killed.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked about the definition of the term "serious
physical injury."
MR. LUCKHAUPT replied that definition is contained in AS 11.81.900,
and reads, "physical injury caused by an act performed under
circumstances that create a substantial risk of death" or "physical
injury that causes serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted
impairment of health, protracted loss or impairment of the function
of a body member or organ, or that unlawfully terminates a
pregnancy." He noted that definition contains a fairly high
standard, as opposed to physical injury which means any action that
causes pain.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR pointed out the committee worked hard to limit SB
5 to specific crimes.
Number 400
BLAIR MCCUNE, Deputy Director of the Alaska Public Defender Agency,
made the following comments via teleconference. A great deal of
work has gone into this bill and it represents the best possible
job that can be done with it, and it is morally correct, however,
the present system in Alaska law is a better alternative. AS
11.56.770, Hindering prosecution in the first degree, is more
applicable to the issue of being considered an accessory and could
have been used to prosecute the man who did not report the crime in
Nevada. Using the accessory statute, the state would have to prove
that the person intended to promote or facilitate the commission of
the crime, a higher standard. Alaska's current system accounts for
these crimes in a clear way, and from a practical, criminal law
point of view, Alaska's laws are well thought out.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked the definition of "a timely manner." He
asked if the crime of not reporting attaches three weeks after the
crime occurred, whether one would run into the circular problem of
fifth amendment guarantees.
MR. MCCUNE told Chairman Taylor he was not aware of another statute
that uses the word "timely." He thought the intent of the House
Judiciary Committee was that immediately is too soon. He agreed
that a circular problem could occur.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that question was raised by several
rural legislators who were concerned that many people in rural
Alaska have no access to a telephone. The intent was to allow
those people to report as soon as they can reasonably get to a
phone.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said a person might go through two or three weeks
of angst, trying to decide whether to turn a friend in for
disciplining her children and causing serious physical harm. If
the crime came to the authorities' attention during that time and
they began to investigate and asked the person for information,
they would have to disclose, at the time of the interview, that the
person is liable to spend one year in jail for not reporting.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON reminded committee members that teachers and
counselors are required to report child sexual abuse. He asked if
anyone could discuss how those cases are handled in which the
teacher does not report immediately.
MR. MCCUNE replied he has never handled such a case.
Number 500
MS. ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, informed committee
members that AS 47.17.020 requires various people, who are required
to report, to do so immediately to the nearest office of the
Department of Health and Social Services.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked what happens if they fail to do so.
MS. CARPENETI replied the offense is a class C misdemeanor. She
noted she is not familiar with any prosecutions that have occurred.
She stated that although everyone should help children who are
being victimized, a lot of problems arise from making it a crime
not to. Existing statutes forbid one from helping another who has
committed a crime. The Department of Law's main concern with HB 34
is the witness problem because once a witness is lost, they are
probably lost for good. The possibility of granting immunity is
not a good practical answer for the reasons that Senator Halford
stated, because offering immunity often bogs down an investigation
and because testimony from that witness is not nearly as
persuasive. She maintained that although few people will be
prosecuted under this bill, the witness problems will be there
every time. The Department of Law has suggested that if this
approach is going to be taken, it should very limited at first to
see what affect it has on witness cooperation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the Department of Law feels the list of
crimes contained in HB 34 is too broad. MS. CARPENETI stated it is
a lot narrower than it was, but the Department of Law has said from
the start that it would prefer the bill only apply to murder and
kidnap cases. She added the Department of Law has worked hard with
Representative Dyson to make the bill much narrower than it
originally was.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR indicated he is concerned about multiple victims
and victimizing a victim through this process, especially in
domestic violence situations. A husband may be victimizing the
wife and children. In such a case the wife could be guilty of
hindering a prosecution for failing to report.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON emphasized that a positive defense was
included in the bill for that reason. In addition, the language
was clarified to ensure that a victim is not prosecuted for not
reporting.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON apologized that HB 34 does not really get at
what he wants - and that is for people to intervene in a crime in
process. Once he started down that road, the bill needed to allow
for those who feel incapable of intervening, in which case the
reporting requirements came in.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted there are two ways to get people to act:
punishment and reward. He said he has had interesting
conversations with the people who run the crime stoppers program,
and learned that in certain instances, one person will turn in
another to get a reward even though that person played an active
part in the crime. He said that program runs into all of the
nuances of human behavior. He asked Ms. Carpeneti how the
legislation should be limited so that the Department of Law would
be more comfortable with it.
MS. CARPENETI suggested eliminating the material on page 1, line
12, to page 2, line 6, or, if the committee wanted to include the
crime of rape, eliminate the material from page 2, line 1, to page
2, line 6. The bill would then apply to the crimes of murder,
sexual assault in the first degree under a rape situation, and
kidnaping.
TAPE 99-33, SIDE B
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if rape would include incest. MS. CARPENETI
said it would not but it could cross reference the statute.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said although he understands Ms. Carpeneti's
suggestion, all of the inherent problems about witnesses would
remain.
MS. CARPENETI said that is correct and that if any legislation is
adopted similar to HB 34, the same problems will occur and they far
overpower the social value of making the statement that we are
morally obliged to protect those who are least able to protect
themselves.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR indicated if anyone is ever prosecuted under HB 34,
the case would be appealed to get some resolution to the
constitutional issues discussed today.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON repeated that between six and 11 other states
have gone down this road. Cases in those states may be appealed
before any in Alaska, which would be helpful. Also, federal
legislation has been introduced that says that several types of
federal funds that flow to states will be withheld if states do not
have some kind of a duty to aid children law.
Number 541
MR. LUCKHAUPT pointed out some of the cases referred to by Chairman
Taylor, such as multiple victims, are already being prosecuted as
reckless endangerment offenses. Last summer in cases in Anchorage,
several spouses plead out to reckless endangerment for engaging in
conduct that exposed another person to substantial risk of physical
harm. He noted the same Fifth Amendment concerns apply to those
cases.
MR. LUCKHAUPT said although the reporting requirement already
applies to educators and health practitioners, those people often
agonize over their decision to report. Society has made it a crime
to not report, however prosecutors have not been willing to charge
those people with crimes if they do not. Massachusetts enacted a
law requiring people to report sexual assaults and Rhode Island
enacted a law requiring people to report sexual assaults,
robberies, murders, and kidnaping. In his research, he was unable
to find cases that established that those laws could not have been
applied. His personal belief is that the law does not get applied
often. The states of Vermont and Minnesota both require that
people come to the aid of other people at any time; inaction can
result in a misdemeanor.
MS. CARPENETI commented that although it is interesting and useful
to talk about the reporting statutes in Title 47, teachers and
medical professionals are not witnesses to the crime, therefore the
risk of losing a witness who might testify is not there nor is the
problem of affecting witnesses who will not come forward at all
because of the possibility of self incrimination.
SENATOR DONLEY asked Ms. Carpeneti if she believes the penalty
should be a class A or a class B misdemeanor. MS. CARPENETI said a
class A misdemeanor is an appropriate penalty because it is one
step below hindering prosecution, which is a class C felony.
SENATOR DONLEY asked what privileges a person loses when convicted
of a misdemeanor.
MS. CARPENETI said no specific list exists but she could get
Senator Donley the information.
MR. LUCKHAUPT informed committee members a person with two
misdemeanor convictions within six years cannot get a concealed
weapons permit.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted domestic violence convictions limit a
person's ability to get a firearm under federal law.
MR. LUCKHAUPT stated the only offense that would aggravate the
sentence for a second offense by statute is in regard to fourth
degree assault.
Number 457
SENATOR DONLEY moved CSHB 34(FIN) from committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, the motion carried.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced HB 225 was referred to the Senate
Judiciary Committee, and that it is his intent to meld SB 109 into
it and use HB 225 as the working document of the committee. He
noted both bills would be taken up tomorrow.
SENATOR DONLEY asked Brooke Miles if she had seen the committee
substitute for SB 109.
Number 440
MS. MILES stated APOC commissioners have not had the opportunity to
review the changes made to SB 109 but that APOC staff have several
questions. Section 3 states that poll results are not
contributions. She asked if the second sentence on page 2, line 9,
concerning the results of the poll being limited to issues, is to
be read in conjunction with the first sentence so that APOC will be
responsible for determining whether the poll was designed primarily
to benefit a candidate.
SENATOR DONLEY asked Ms. Miles what her interpretation of that
provision is. He noted it appears to be a sentence that stands
alone.
MS. MILES said she also sees it as a sentence that stands alone.
She added the issue polls are completely different from the other
polls in that they are not issued to benefit a candidate.
SENATOR DONLEY remarked the sentence specifies the results of a
poll limited to issues that does not mention any candidate.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR pointed out he understands the distinction between
the issue poll which does not mention a candidate, however the
previous sentence states that a poll that was provided to a
candidate but was not designed or done primarily for the benefit of
that candidate is not a contribution. He asked how push polls fit
within this legislation.
SENATOR DONLEY noted this particular provision is written to deal
with communicating results of polls to candidates.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR questioned whether the results of a poll, which
the popularity of the candidates, would be considered a
contribution if given to one candidate.
SENATOR DONLEY replied if the poll is about issues, its results are
not a contribution because of free speech. If the poll was
primarily designed to benefit a candidate, then its results would
be considered a contribution.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked how a poll would be designed to benefit a
candidate. SENATOR DONLEY answered a poll could contain questions
asking the respondent if he/she would be likely to vote for a
candidate if the candidate supported a specific issue.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked how a push poll would be interpreted.
SENATOR DONLEY said it would be covered under existing law so if it
was targeted against a specific candidate by another candidate it
would be considered a contribution to the benefitting candidate.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR argued it would have to be shown to have been
specifically designed to benefit a certain candidate. SENATOR
DONLEY asserted that the provision only applies to the results of
a poll being provided to a candidate, and one would not give the
results of a push poll to the person he/she conducted the push poll
against.
MS. MILES indicated a regulation specifically says that polling
information is a contribution consistent with other types of
information or data provided to a candidate.
SENATOR DONLEY said the provision in HB 225 clarifies that the
issue type of information gathered from a poll should not be
considered a contribution because that is a matter of free speech.
He repeated if the issue poll is designed for the benefit of a
candidate, then it should be considered a contribution.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if a candidate would be in violation if ARCO,
for example, did a poll to determine where the public stood on ten
issues, and gave the results to certain candidates that it had
already contributed the maximum donation to.
SENATOR DONLEY said that is a powerful free speech question but
that no court would view the transmission of public policy
information as illegal. He added if the poll specified a candidate
or was designed to benefit that candidate, then maybe the First
Amendment protections would not apply.
MS. MILES noted under current law ARCO is not supposed to be making
contributions because it is a corporation. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR
questioned whether ARCO could legally contribute the results of a
poll to a candidate.
SENATOR DONLEY said that also violates the First Amendment so the
statute needs to be clarified to say that should not be the
situation. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated it is not clear in the bill.
SENATOR DONLEY commented the polling issue has always been a
difficult problem. One cannot tell others they cannot communicate
about issues otherwise free speech rights are violated.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced HB 225 would be taken up the following
day.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked committee members what action they would like
to take on SB 162.
SENATOR DONLEY said he does not support addressing it in the time
frame allowed this session.
HJR 29-ENDORSE FED COURT OF APPEALS/9TH CIRCUIT
CORY WINCHELL, staff to Representative Pete Kott, sponsor of HJR
29, gave the following overview of the measure. HJR 29 supports
S.253 sponsored by Senator Murkowski. S.253 splits the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals into three divisions, Northern, Central,
and Southern. Those divisions will have judges coming from within
the divisions, and a watchdog agency will be put over the Court of
Appeals and the appeals process will be constricted. The bill is
a non-contentious measure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked how HJR 29 differs from previous legislation.
MR. WINCHELL said this measure has been brought up several times
however a powerful lobby of judges does not want to see the Ninth
Circuit Court tinkered with. They have allowed those judges to
stay in. There is still the Court of Appeals but if one gets an en
banc hearing out of any certain division, it is a direct review to
the Supreme Court. That way they can get around the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals in their divisions. The watchdog agency will
report to Congress every few years and suggest changes. The Ninth
Circuit Court has an 87 percent reversal rate.
SENATOR DONLEY moved HJR 29 with individual recommendations. There
being no objection, the motion carried.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 3:06 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|