03/15/2006 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB222 | |
| SB206 | |
| SB306 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 206 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 306 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 222 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 2006
8:33 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Ralph Seekins, Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Gene Therriault
Senator Hollis French
Senator Gretchen Guess
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 222
"An Act relating to breaches of security involving personal
information, consumer report security freezes, consumer credit
monitoring, credit accuracy, protection of social security
numbers, disposal of records, factual declarations of innocence
after identity theft, filing police reports regarding identity
theft, and furnishing consumer credit header information; and
amending Rule 60, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."
MOVED CSSB 222(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 206
"An Act relating to material witnesses; and amending Rule 58.1,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 204, Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure."
MOVED CSSB 206(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 306
"An Act requiring an employing unit with a change in ownership,
management, or control or similar change to notify the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development of the change;
relating to the unemployment contribution rate of an employing
unit; defining 'business' for purposes of statutes setting
unemployment contribution rates; establishing the crime of
obtaining an unemployment rate by deception; and providing for
an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 222
SHORT TITLE: PROTECTION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) THERRIAULT, GUESS
01/09/06 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/05
01/09/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/09/06 (S) L&C, JUD
01/24/06 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
01/24/06 (S) Heard & Held
01/24/06 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
02/14/06 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/14/06 (S) Moved CSSB 222(L&C) Out of Committee
02/14/06 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
02/16/06 (S) L&C RPT CS 4DP 1AM NEW TITLE
02/16/06 (S) DP: BUNDE, DAVIS, ELLIS, SEEKINS
02/16/06 (S) AM: STEVENS B
02/22/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/22/06 (S) Heard & Held
02/22/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/27/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/27/06 (S) Heard & Held
02/27/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/28/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/28/06 (S) Heard & Held
02/28/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/01/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/01/06 (S) Heard & Held
03/01/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/08/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/08/06 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/14/06 (H) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/14/06 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
BILL: SB 206
SHORT TITLE: DETENTION OF MATERIAL WITNESSES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) BUNDE
01/09/06 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/05
01/09/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/09/06 (S) JUD, FIN
02/16/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/16/06 (S) Heard & Held
02/16/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/27/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/27/06 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/08/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/08/06 (S) Heard & Held
03/08/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/15/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 306
SHORT TITLE: UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND & TAXES
SPONSOR(s): LABOR & COMMERCE
02/23/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/23/06 (S) L&C JUD
03/02/06 (S) L&C AT 2:00 PM BELTZ 211
03/02/06 (S) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/07/06 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/07/06 (S) Moved SB 306 Out of Committee
03/07/06 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/09/06 (S) L&C RPT 3DP
03/09/06 (S) DP: BUNDE, DAVIS, STEVENS B
03/15/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Gene Therriault
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 222
Senator Gretchen Guess
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 222
Steve Cleary, Director
Alaska Public Interest Research Group
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 222
Ed Sniffen, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 222
Senator Con Bunde
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 206 and SB 306
Dean Guaneli, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 206
Walt Monegan, Chief of Police
Anchorage Police Department
th
632 W. 6 Ave
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 206
Jane Alberts, Legislative Aide
Staff to Senator Con Bunde
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 306
Paula Scavera, Special Assistant
Department of Labor & Workforce Development
PO Box 21149
Juneau, AK 99802-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 306
Pat Shier, Acting Deputy Director
Department of Labor & Workforce Development
PO Box 21149
Juneau, AK 99802-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 306
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:33:44 AM. Present were Senators
Hollis French, Gretchen Guess, Gene Therriault, Charlie Huggins,
and Chair Ralph Seekins.
SB 222-PROTECTION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION
8:34:13 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SB 222 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT moved version S as the working document
before the committee.
CHAIR SEEKINS objected for the purpose of explanation.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS explained the changes to the bill that
were contained in version S:
Changes in CSSB 222, Version S
1. Page 2, line 2: Notification of breach only to impacted
persons not entire databases
2. Page 2, lines 12-13: Requires written notification by law
enforcement when they lift a delay on notification
3. Page 2, line 24: Deletes section 45.48.070 on Minimum
Contacts
4. Page 3, line 27: Breach of security includes acquisition
or reasonable belief of acquisition
5. Page 4, lines 7-21: Ensures clarity in the definition of
"personal information" and include encrypted data when the
encryption key has been accessed or acquired
6. Page 6, lines 10 and 13-23: Clarifies that insurance
companies can hold an application as incomplete (or other
listed actions) when a security freeze is in place
7. Page 8, line 19 and page 9, line 23: Clarifies the
language in the "Notice of Rights" outlined in section
45.48.170 to ensure consistency with the bill's effect
8. Page 10, line 19: Deletes the section previously numbered
45.48.200 on Minimum Contacts
9. Page 12, line 8: Clarifies freeze exemptions to include
credit score if to a consumer at their request
10. Page 12, lines 14-18: Improves clarity and conforms to
California law in the "re-seller" exemption
11. Page 16, line 28-page 17, line 3: Clarifies that local law
may authorize collection of Social Security numbers
12. Page 17, lines 1-3: Clarifies that state agencies may
adopt regulations to authorize collections of Social
Security numbers
13. Page 17, lines 4-8: Ensures state of local agencies can
disclose SSN to another state, local, or federal
governmental agency when required to carry out the
agency's duties
14. Article 5, pages 17-20: Adds government agencies to the
disposal of records section
8:43:22 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS removed his objection. Hearing no further
objections, the committee adopted version S.
SENATOR THERRIAULT explained that the issue of state agencies
being liable remained up for discussion and that there would be
a fiscal impact. However, he stated, the sponsors would rather
the fiscal discussion happen in the Senate Finance Committee.
STEVE CLEARY, Director of Alaska Public Interest Research Group
(AkPIRG), testified in support of SB 222. He stated that the
bill was a great example of bipartisan work in the Legislature
and that it would benefit consumers in Alaska.
8:48:24 AM
ED SNIFFEN, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL),
testified that version S resolves most of the concerns that have
been heard by the different entities and the public. Concerning
interagency disclosure, some agencies also disclose social
security information to non-governmental third parties in
certain circumstances, such as the Alaska Commission on Post
Secondary Education. That agency is required to report any
defaulted loans to credit agencies.
8:51:25 AM
SENATOR GUESS informed Mr. Sniffen that she and Senator
Therriault were working on fixing that concern.
8:54:24 AM
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH moved CSSB 222(JUD) out of committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no
objections, the motion carried.
SB 206-DETENTION OF MATERIAL WITNESSES
8:57:24 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SB 206 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT moved version I as the working document
before the committee.
CHAIR SEEKINS objected for explanation.
SENATOR CON BUNDE, Bill Sponsor, informed the committee that the
chief of police in his district is frustrated by the fact that
officers are not able to temporarily detain crime scene
witnesses, particularly in "gang violence" situations. He noted
the importance of upholding the rights of ordinary citizens and
so the bill is crafted with that in mind.
SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to page 2, lines 26-30, and asked
Senator Bunde the reason for obtaining fingerprints from
detainees.
SENATOR BUNDE replied that would only occur in the event of a
murder or attempted murder. It would be for the purpose of
diffusing future combat in the situation of gang retaliation.
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Department of
Law (DOL), added that false identification cards are prevalent
among gang members and so fingerprinting proves useful in
serious cases.
9:03:48 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT countered many other people could be swept up
in a police detainment scenario and innocent people could be
subject to having their fingerprints entered into a police
database by force.
MR. GUANELI responded the police would have the right to obtain
the fingerprints but it would not be mandatory and would be a
judgment call.
9:06:06 AM
SENATOR BUNDE noted police make judgment calls every day. He
spoke in support of the provision and said it was not special
interest legislation for Anchorage only. Gang violence is a
growing trend, he said.
MR. GUANELI noted the statute cited on Page 2, line 28 should
have referenced AS 11.61.190 instead of AS 11.61.195.
SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to Page 2, line 26 "the person is
detained in connection with the investigation" and asked Mr.
Guaneli to explain what that means.
MR. GUANELI explained that the same section (Article 3 Sec.
12.50.201) draws out the standards that a police officer must
meet in order to detain a person. The detainee might not be
involved in the crime or even be a suspect but the police might
believe that person has information about the crime and so they
would be able to lawfully detain a person that they reasonably
believe to have information.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH asked Mr. Guaneli to read for the record
the definition of misconduct involving a weapon in the first
degree.
9:11:20 AM
MR. GUANELI did so.
Sec. 11.61.190. Misconduct involving weapons in the first
degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of misconduct involving
weapons in the first degree if the person
(1) uses or attempts to use a firearm during the commission
of an offense under AS 11.71.010 - 11.71.040; or
(2) discharges a firearm from a propelled vehicle while the
vehicle is being operated and under circumstances manifesting
substantial and unjustifiable risk of physical injury to a
person or damage to property.
(b) Misconduct involving weapons in the first degree is a
class A felony.
SENATOR FRENCH referred to Page 2, line 9, and asked whether the
police would be allowed to detain people who may be in a mall
parking lot and not have witnessed anything. He expressed
concern with the broad language of "in the vicinity."
MR. GUANELI explained subsection (a)(1)(B) would allow police to
talk to people who they reasonably believe have material
information. The critical part of the bill is subsection (a)(2)
where it would require that the police must believe the person
would have information on the crime.
9:16:23 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked Mr. Guaneli the level of force police would
be authorized to employ in order to gain cooperation of citizens
who may not want to be photographed or fingerprinted.
MR. GUANELI said police currently have the ability to use
reasonable force to enable the effect of whatever action they
seek. It would depend on the circumstances and in this case
police would be dealing with a citizen who may have information
and so that level would involve the "laying on of hands" and
"restricting movements."
9:18:24 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said he also had concern over the words, "in the
vicinity," but noted that the committee has discussed it
extensively. He said the intent is there must be a level of
reasonable immediacy.
MR. GUANELI agreed. In response to Senator French's concern over
force, the provision on line 16 comes directly from a Court of
Appeals case in Alaska where police pulled over a vehicle they
believe contained a crime victim. The Court of Appeals
authorized police to detain even a crime victim, he said.
9:21:22 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS posed a hypothetical scenario where the police
believed an eyewitness to a crime posed a threat to the officer
and asked whether they would be allowed to detain the witness
more securely.
MR. GUANELI reported there was a large body of case law that
allows police to take reasonable actions to protect themselves.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether police would have legal authority to
detain suspected gang members with more force than SB 206 would
allow.
MR. GUANELI replied SB 206 does not directly address level of
force. The intent is that reasonable force be applied dependent
on circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Guaneli to describe an "exigent
circumstance."
MR. GUANELI explained an exigent circumstance is a level that
may not rise to an emergency but there is some reason to believe
action must be taken immediately. One example might be in the
collection of evidence. A witness may have evidence on their
person and not even know it and police recognize that action
must be taken in order to secure that evidence.
9:25:53 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS removed his objection. Hearing no further
objections, Version I was adopted.
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS moved Amendment 1. Page 2, line 28;
delete AS 11.61.195 and insert AS 11.61.190. Hearing no
objections, Amendment 1 was adopted.
MR. WALT MONEGAN, Anchorage Chief of Police, testified in
support of SB 206. He spoke of a homicide case in Anchorage
outside a VFW hall four years ago. Police later found out there
were potentially 50 witnesses to the shooting and yet the
homicide remains unsolved. He expressed frustration that police
often are not privy to what the community knows about a crime.
9:31:38 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked Chief Monegan the level of force that he
would authorize for his officers to detain witnesses.
CHIEF MONEGAN explained that the beginning of a crime
investigation is often chaotic and officers do not necessarily
know the bad guys from the good. They separate individuals into
individual cars, sometimes handcuffed, until things get sorted
out. Officers are good at explaining to the public afterwards
the reason for using force to gain control of a crowd. Normally
everything happens fairly quietly but sometimes there are a few
people who try to resist being detained and when that happens it
activates the "prey drive," he stated. Police generally try to
find out why someone is resisting and that would include using
reasonable force.
9:35:53 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS stated concern for consistency of policy
throughout the Alaska Chiefs of Police.
CHIEF MONEGAN responded matters are generally handled in the
same manner. Officers must be respectful and professional while
trying to revoke rapport in the community. Officers who take the
bullying tact generally fail at the investigation scene.
CHAIR SEEKINS closed public testimony and asked for discussion
among committee members. He said SB 206 appears to give
additional powers of detainment in serious circumstances. He
said he is satisfied that the bill was ready to move on to the
next committee of referral.
SENATOR HUGGINS said he would be more supportive of the bill if
he lived in Anchorage. He suggested putting a sunset on the bill
for future review.
9:39:53 AM
SENATOR BUNDE noted that legislation could be changed during any
legislative session and so he did not see a need for a sunset.
SENATOR FRENCH expressed concern that the bill would make it a
crime for a person, who may be unaware that a crime has
occurred, to hurry away from the scene without consenting to be
photographed. He expressed support for the fingerprint portion
of the bill.
SENATOR BUNDE opined people are photographed a great deal more
than they realize.
CHAIR SEEKINS expressed support for the bill.
9:44:56 AM
SENATOR FRENCH countered his constituents support the part about
taking fingerprints of people connected with the investigation
of a murder or attempted murder and they support the officer
using a certain amount of force to do so. People would support
making it a crime for a person who does not comply with the
officer in this type of situation but to slow down a law-abiding
citizen and force them to have their photograph taken seemed
overly done.
SENATOR FRENCH moved Amendment 2. Page 3, line 8, delete the
words "photographs or".
9:47:42 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said there would have to be a reasonable necessity
for the police officer to detain a person before the photograph
would be taken.
MR. GUANELI agreed. The reason the criminal provision is in the
bill is because of reasonable force. The intent is that the
officer would facilitate cooperation of the individual by
explaining that it would be a quick and easy process and by
advising them of the consequences if they resist.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Guaneli to explain the reason the
officer would be taking the photograph.
MR. GUANELI said the most common scenario would be that the
person was not able to show proper identification.
CHAIR SEEKINS noted that person would already be under temporary
detention.
MR. GUANELI said correct.
9:52:59 AM
SENATOR GUESS recognized that the bill does not specify that the
photograph would be taken in the event that a person was unable
to show identification. She expressed support for the amendment.
Law-abiding citizens could be charged with a misdemeanor simply
for rushing off to get their kids from daycare, she stated.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he had a harder time with the words "or
resists" on line 8 than with the photograph taking.
SENATOR BUNDE referred to line 5 and said the officer has to
have "reasonable suspicion" that a person has witnessed a crime.
MR. GUANELI said the notion of reasonable suspicion is found in
all the case law. The length of detention would depend on the
reason for detention.
9:56:00 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said there are no Miranda warnings for someone
under temporary detention and so that person would not know
their rights in the situation. He said if the committee believes
that a person should be set free once they show the proper
identification that should be written into the bill. He said it
is sure as daylight that a lawful person will be charged with a
crime because of the way the bill is currently written.
CHAIR SEEKINS referred to the proposed Amendment 2 and objected.
Roll call proved Amendment 2 failed with Senators Guess and
French voting yea and Senators Huggins, Therriault, and Chair
Seekins voting nay.
9:58:01 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS moved CSSB 206(JUD) from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no
objections, the motion carried.
SB 306-UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND & TAXES
10:07:14 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SB 306 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR CON BUNDE explained SB 306 addresses unemployment
insurance avoidance schemes by unscrupulous employers. Failure
to pass the bill would result in the de-certification of the
Alaska UI program and employers in this state would lose a
federal offset credit of 5.4 percent, resulting in $103 million
dollars in additional taxes to the employer and the state would
lose $30.8 million in administrative and operation funding for
UI programs.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS asked what would happen when someone
doesn't comply simply because they don't understand the
procedure.
JANE ALBERTS, Staff to Senator Bunde, surmised that there would
be notification sent to businesses that, in the event that they
purchase or acquire another business they would be required by
law to notify the Department of Labor and Workforce Development.
CHAIR SEEKINS said it appears that a business owner would have
to knowingly intend to deceive the Department and that they
would have to be in violation of AS 42 U.S.C. 503(k) (SUTA
Dumping Prevention Act of 2004).
10:12:17 AM
PAULA SCAVERA, Special Assistant, Department of Labor and
Workforce Development (DOLWD), introduced Pat Shier to answer
questions.
PAT SHIER, Acting Deputy Director, Department of Labor and
Workforce Development (DOLWD) offered to answer questions. He
explained the bill was intended to stop willful
misrepresentation for the purpose of obtaining a lower rate. The
bill complies with the federal intent that there be more
meaningful penalties for the specific purpose of misleading the
DOLWD in order to fraudulently obtain an artificially low
unemployment tax rate.
SENATOR GUESS referred to her original question and asked what
happens when the employing unit purchases another business and
does not notify the DOLWD.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked the definition of "employing unit."
MR. SHIER explained an employing unit is defined as a person or
an organization that has people working for it for a certain
number of days.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether a self-employed person was an
employing unit.
MR. SHIER said no.
10:15:53 AM
MR. SHIER responded to Senator Guess's earlier question and said
the section of the bill in question has been in effect since
prior to Alaska Statehood. When an employer fails to notify the
DOLWD, they are not automatically penalized. The bill is
designed to codify in law that there is that obligation. There
is no penalty associated with a failure to report. As the
Department becomes aware of the failures, they assist the
business owner to comply with state and federal law.
10:18:36 AM
SENATOR GUESS referred to Section 23.20.297 (a) and asked Mr.
Shier to explain paragraphs (1-2).
MR. SHIER said it was important to note lines 16-17, which is
the purpose they are attempting to describe. If an employer
transfers its trade or business to a smaller business, they have
to take their higher rate with them. The rates are then
recalculated based on existing regulations. Paragraph (2)
describes the situation if the person is not an employer at the
time they acquire another business and it governs how the rate
would be applied.
SENATOR GUESS asked for clarification whether the business owner
would have to be in a merge situation in order for the bill to
apply.
MR. SHIER responded the "common ownership" portion of the bill
is the language that the federal government required in order to
allow states to identify the person at the root of the transfer.
The intent of the bill is to identify the business owner that is
attempting to purchase another business with a smaller tax rate
and then to claim that smaller tax rate for the merged larger
business.
SENATOR GUESS referred to paragraph (2) and questioned the
reason for involving the commissioner.
MR. SHIER responded paragraph (2) deals with a person who is not
an employer and has no rights or responsibilities under the Act.
It is for someone who is trying to obtain a lower rate, such as
a person who closes a business for a period of time and then
purchases another business and then re-opens the closed business
and claims the lower tax rate. Paragraph (2) allows the
Department to examine the prior business and investigate whether
or not the person closed the business for the sole purpose of
obtaining a lower tax rate.
10:27:38 AM
MR. SHIER added he could not answer as to the reason for
involving the commissioner in paragraph (2), but that it was
based on federal guidelines.
SENATOR GUESS noted the bill was very confusing to read.
CHAIR SEEKINS said the fraudulent acts would occur under AS
23.20.295(d)(1) and (4).
SENATOR GUESS said regardless of what the purpose is, AS
23.20.297(1-2) should be part of the system regardless of
whether they are fraudulent or not.
CHAIR SEEKINS said subsection (d)(2) and (3) are not fraudulent
acts whereas 23.20.295(d)(1) and (4) would be if the
commissioner found intent.
10:30:41 AM
MR. SHIER claimed "intent and knowing" are very high standards
and difficult to prove. The reason for SB 306 is due to federal
government compliance and state employers stand to lose millions
of dollars in tax credits.
SENATOR GUESS reiterated her opinion that the bill was written
in an extremely unclear manner. She said a business couldn't be
charged with a crime and asked whom the person would be that
would be charged with the felony.
MR. SHIER responded it would be the individual who has the duty
to pay.
CHAIR SEEKINS held the bill in committee.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Seekins adjourned the meeting at 10:34:23 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|