Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/01/2011 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing|| Alaska Judicial Council | |
| SB82 | |
| SB78 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | SB 78 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 82 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 1, 2011
1:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Joe Paskvan
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator John Coghill
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING
Alaska Judicial Council
Donald J. Haase
CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 82
"An Act relating to the procedures and jurisdiction of the
Department of Health and Social Services for the care of
children who are in state custody; relating to court
jurisdiction and findings pertaining to children who are in
state custody; and modifying the licensing requirements for
foster care."
- MOVED CSSSSB 82(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 78
"An Act relating to liability of certain limited liability
organizations holding liquor licenses."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
CONFIRMATION HEARING: See 03/23/11 meeting
BILL: SB 78
SHORT TITLE: LIQUOR LICENSE HOLDER LIABILITY
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MCGUIRE BY REQUEST
02/04/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/04/11 (S) L&C, JUD
03/22/11 (S) L&C AT 2:00 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/22/11 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/11 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/29/11 (S) L&C AT 2:00 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/29/11 (S) Moved SB 78 Out of Committee
03/29/11 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/30/11 (S) L&C RPT 5DP
03/30/11 (S) DP: EGAN, GIESSEL, DAVIS, PASKVAN,
MENARD
04/01/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 82
SHORT TITLE: FOSTER CARE LICENSING/STATE CUSTODY
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DAVIS
02/04/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/04/11 (S) HSS, JUD
03/11/11 (S) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
03/11/11 (S) HSS, JUD
03/14/11 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/14/11 (S) Heard & Held
03/14/11 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
03/16/11 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/16/11 (S) Moved CSSSSB 82(HSS) Out of Committee
03/16/11 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
03/18/11 (S) HSS RPT CS 5DP SAME TITLE
03/18/11 (S) DP: DAVIS, MEYER, ELLIS, EGAN, DYSON
03/30/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/30/11 (S) Heard & Held
03/30/11 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
WITNESS REGISTER
CELESTE HODGE, Staff
Senator Bettye Davis
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions on CSSB 82, version
X, on behalf of the sponsor.
ESTER TEMPEL, Staff
Senator Lesil McGuire
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the intent of CSSB 78, version B.
DICK ROSSTON, Attorney
Dorsey and Whitney LLP
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of LLC provisions of
CSSB 78, version B.
RANDALL CALL, General Counsel
Alyeska Resort and President
Alyeska Resort Development Company
Girdwood, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of LLC provisions of
CSSB 78, version B.
BOB KLEIN, Chair
Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board and board member
Alaska CHARR and
Director of Sales and Marketing
Brown Jug
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 78, version B.
DALE FOX, President
Alaska CHARR
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 78, version B.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:31:44 PM
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:31 p.m. Senators Paskvan,
McGuire, Wielechowski, Coghill, and Chair French were present at
the call to order.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING
^Alaska Judicial Council
1:32:22 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the first order of business would be the
continuation of the confirmation hearing of Donald Haase to the
Alaska Judicial Council. He directed attention to a memo from
legislative legal responding to his question about whether the
committee could hold a governor's proposed appointment in
committee and thereby defeat the appointment. In brief, he said,
the answer is no; all names that are nominated by the governor
will appear in the joint Senate and House confirmation hearing.
Therefore, Mr. Haase's name will appear regardless of the
committee's interview and analysis.
CHAIR FRENCH said he continues to have concerns with the
appointment for several reasons. Mr. Haase is not part of the
Southeast region, which has historically had a public seat on
the Alaska Judicial Council, and he didn't tell the committee
about an important part of his resume and some of his personal
views.
1:33:40 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said this is an important council and an
important appointment. This council is set out in the Alaska
Constitution, which is somewhat unusual. One of the more
important aspects of the Alaska Constitution is the way that
judges are selected. Judges aren't elected in this state; they
are qualified by a Judicial Council. Therefore, the people that
are appointed and confirmed to serve on this council are
critically important. They're almost as important as the judges
because they are actually picking who is qualified to serve on
the bench.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he had two problems with this nominee.
The first relates to the regional balance issue. For the last 25
years a member of the judicial council has come from Southeast.
Testimony from Ketchikan highlighted this concern. Qualified
applicants from Southeast submitted applications to be on this
council and unfortunately none were chosen. Regional balance is
more than a fairness issue; the constitution directs that it be
considered. The second issue relates to the statements that the
nominee made and his qualifications. When you're picking someone
to determine who is and is not qualified to sit as a judge, it
is important to look at their qualifications, positions and
statements. This nominee made statements that are not fitting
for this position.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved that the committee report the name
Donald Haase from committee to the full body for consideration,
but recommend a "No" vote.
CHAIR FRENCH restated that there was a motion to forward the
name with the recommendation from the committee for a "No" vote.
He asked if there was objection.
1:36:23 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said he didn't object but he wanted to make a
statement. He said he knows that the nominee's political views
aren't enjoyed by all the members of the committee, but the
regional representation issue is in the balance. One seat is
occupied by someone from Juneau and the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court also resides in Juneau. Valdez, by comparison, has
never had representation. If regional representation is really
taken into consideration, that Southcentral, eastern part of
Alaska is worthy of consideration. On that point he said he
would approve the nomination. With respect to political
affiliation, all the members of the Judicial Council have
political affiliation and they certainly all have opinions. The
cornerstone issue is the fact that the members take an oath. He
said he knows this nominee and he has confidence that Mr. Haase
will uphold that commitment. I wouldn't want to have that
impugned and I will support the nomination, Senator Coghill
stated.
1:37:53 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN said his thoughts on the nomination had nothing
to do with Mr. Haase's political views and everything to do with
his constitutional views. Section 1.22 of the Alaska
Constitution has the most stellar Right of Privacy provision of
any in the nation. It's important that this is preserved at
every opportunity. Mr. Haase's views related to premarital and
extramarital sex directly infringe and challenge whether there
is a constitutional right of privacy in Alaska. He wants
government to enter into and make criminal activities that the
constitution expressly protects, Senator Paskvan stated.
Furthermore, when the Alaska Constitution was formed the Alaska
Judicial Council was put in an express role that is fundamental
to an independent judiciary. In responding to a survey Mr. Haase
indicated that he would like to strip the constitution of that
express role. It's very troubling that Mr. Haase wants to be a
member of the Judicial Council yet he doesn't support the role
of the Judicial Council as set forth in Alaska's constitution.
My objection to Mr. Haase's appointment is based on the
constitution, not politics, and I'm recommending a "No" vote,
Senator Paskvan stated.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI clarified that his position on Mr. Haase's
appointment had nothing to do with his political views. He often
disagrees with the political views of people who come before the
committee for confirmation. As Senator Paskvan said, this is
about the constitutional views that Mr. Haase holds and about
regional balance.
SENATOR COGHILL stated he had no objection.
1:40:43 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection the name Donald J.
Haase will advance to a joint session for consideration with the
recommendation from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee that
there be a "No" vote.
At ease from 1:40 p.m. to 1:42 p.m.
SB 82-FOSTER CARE LICENSING/STATE CUSTODY
1:42:29 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 82 and asked for
a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute. He noted
that it incorporates the amendment that was adopted at the
previous hearing.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to adopt the proposed work draft CS
for SB 82, labeled 27-LS0500\X, as the working document.
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes and asked Ms.
Hodges if the CS accurately integrates the amendment that was
passed with the bill.
1:43:10 PM
CELESTE HODGE, Staff to Senator Bettye Davis, sponsor of SB 82,
said yes. She thanked the committee for the extensive discussion
of the amendment at the previous hearing.
1:44:12 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said he appreciates the work that was done on
the bill. It's a good piece of legislation.
CHAIR FRENCH found no further questions or comments and
solicited a motion.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to report CS for SSSB 82, version X,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection, CSSSSB 82(JUD)
moved from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:45:09 PM
At ease from 1:45 p.m. to 1:47 p.m.
SB 78-LIQUOR LICENSE HOLDER LIABILITY
1:47:00 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 78 and asked for
a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS).
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to adopt the work draft CS for SB 78,
labeled 17-LS0282\B, as the working document.
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes.
ESTER TEMPEL, staff to Senator Lesil McGuire, sponsor of SB 78,
said the intent of the version B is twofold. The first section
of the bill seeks to provide equal treatment to limited
liability companies and foreign limited liability companies in
the liquor liability context as they are treated in the business
world generally. Sections 2 and 3 of the bill seek to provide a
limitation of liability for a taxicab or limousine driver who
gets in an accident while driving another person's vehicle from
a licensed premise.
Currently, persons engaged in businesses commonly use LLCs
instead of corporations while leaving intact the limited
liability of the LLC members for all other business purposes. As
currently written, AS 04.21.035 is an exception to the
protections against the individual liability offered to partners
of properly registered and maintained LLPs and to members of
properly registered and maintained LLCs. This means that
partners of LLPs and members of LLCs are not relieved of the
obligation or liability otherwise imposed on the holder of a
liquor license.
1:49:15 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if that means that LLP partners and LLC
members are personally liable for the liabilities that may be
incurred by their business.
MS. TEMPEL replied that's her understanding and to avoid that
liability the business or license holder would operate as a
corporate entity rather than as an LLC. She continued that the
first part of the CS amends the existing statute saying that the
liability will be imposed only on partners of a limited
liability partnership or a foreign limited liability
partnership, but will no longer apply to a limited liability
company or a foreign limited liability company. The balance of
the CS is a Good Samaritan bill for taxicab operators who drive
an intoxicated person's motor vehicle home or another location
as directed by the intoxicated person.
This Good Samaritan legislation was originally passed in 2004
with a 2007 sunset, which has been overlooked until recently.
The bill has helped to create a deterrent for those who might
otherwise drive impaired if unable to find an alternate method
of transportation. It recognizes that while some people may have
made arrangements to get home after drinking, the designated
driver may not always be available or unimpaired. This service
is free and confidential.
In 2008, Anchorage had 2,777 DUI arrests of which 453 resulted
in accidents and 16 fatalities of which 8 were alcohol related.
In Alaska in general, 17 of 62 fatalities were alcohol related.
In 2009, Anchorage had 2,604 DUI arrests of which 324 resulted
in accidents. According to the Anchorage Police Department
(APD), 7 of 17 fatal accidents were alcohol related.
Sixty three establishments participate in this program,
primarily in Anchorage. Since the program began in 2005, over
821 individual rides have been given and over 2,379 vouchers
have been sold.
1:53:00 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the idea is to enhance and extend the
limited liability provisions of an LLC to the owners and holders
of liquor licenses.
MS. TEMPEL said yes.
SENATOR MCGUIRE explained that this provision was drafted before
LLCs and LLPs were a matter of Alaska law so this is really
cleanup language to allow business entities that have taken that
form to function without artificial limitation.
CHAIR FRENCH summarized that this is structured so that LLPs and
foreign LLPs remain on the hook for liability but LLCs and
foreign LLCs are treated the way a corporation is treated.
SENATOR MCGUIRE agreed.
DICK ROSSTON, Attorney, Dorsey and Whitney LLP, stated that a
number of his clients hold liquor licenses in Alaska in the
corporate form, but would prefer to use the LLC form. He
informed the committee that LLCs are commonly used instead of
corporations, and except in the liquor license context they
provide the limited liability protection that the name implies.
He offered the opinion that the lack of protection for liquor
license holders probably came about because LLCs were not well
understood when Sec. 04.21.035 was enacted. He noted that
neither domestic nor foreign LLPs were included in this proposed
fix.
MR. ROSSTON referenced a chart in the bill packet that shows the
key points of corporations, general partnerships, limited
liability companies, and limited liability partnerships. He
offered to review the chart.
1:58:45 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said the members didn't need a detailed
explanation.
MR. ROSSTON said the gist is that limited liability company
means limited liability protection and that wasn't well
understood when the legislation was enacted. There's no reason
to treat the owners of LLCs differently than the owners of
corporations, he said.
CHAIR FRENCH asked when Sec. 04.21.035 was enacted.
MR. ROSSTON replied it was originally drafted in 1999 and LLCs
were brought into existence in Alaska in 1994. At that time
there was a misunderstanding that LLCs were more like general
partnerships, which have pass-through liability for all general
partners, but they're actually treated more like corporations in
the business world. He added that a distinction between an LLC
and an LLP is that to become an LLP under Alaska statutes there
must first be a partnership agreement. That agreement is then
amended to form an LLP.
2:02:13 PM
RANDALL CALL, General Counsel, Alyeska Resort and President,
Alyeska Resort Development Company, said when this legislation
was introduced he did some research and found that California,
Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Washington, and Oregon provide limited
liability to members of LLCs. Alaska is out of sync which makes
it less likely that investment will occur here. Most investors
don't invest through publicly held corporations for developments
purposes. When the new owners acquired Alyeska Resort, it was
done through LLCs. The investors in those LLCs are investors in
several states including several eastern states and they would
not invest if they didn't have limited liability for liquor
issues. In order to preserve their limited liability, Alyeska
Resort created a corporation to hold the liquor licenses. This
legislation will make it easier for owners of liquor licenses to
do business in Alaska, but it doesn't change the liability of
the LLC. It simply gives limited liability to the members.
2:05:38 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if LLCs and LLPs are treated the same as a
corporation under Alaska law with respect to adequate
capitalization.
MR. CALL replied LLCs are used far more frequently than LLPs.
LLPs are typically used for medical practices, law firms, and
other professional practices. They're generally a method whereby
the state confines liability to the professional and that
individual remains liable for his or her malpractice. The
liability of his or her partners is limited. LLPs aren't
generally used as mechanisms for investment, owning or holding
real property, or making developments.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what sort of liability insurance one needs to
operate a liquor license.
MR. CALL said he didn't know if there's a threshold requirement
but the entity that holds the Alyeska Resort liquor license
carries dram shop insurance. He added that this is probably
common practice for owners of liquor licenses.
2:08:40 PM
BOB KLEIN, Chair, Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board; board
member, Alaska Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant & Retailer's
Association (CHARR); and Director of Sales and Marketing, Brown
Jug, stated that he was on the ABC Board in 1999 when Title 4
was amended to describe certain LLCs and he believes that Mr.
Rosston's characterization of "not understanding" it is gentle.
LLCs were relatively unknown at the time and the general thought
was that the drafters had done the right thing. But as LLCs
developed and as the use became apparent, it became increasingly
clear that Title 4 should be brought in sync with what's
happening in the business community.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if some liquor licenses holders might hold
their licenses as an LLC without knowledge that there are issues
with respect to liability because of the statute.
MR. KLEIN said the Brown Jug owner uses LLCs but chose the
corporate format because of the language in Title 4. He surmised
that anyone who is paying attention would avoid using LLCs for
the reasons that Mr. Rosston outlined.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the ABC board looks for an insurance
policy or a certain level of assets when it awards a liquor
license.
MR. KLEIN replied the Board look at the backgrounds of the
people who will be listed on the license, not at fiscal
liability.
2:11:53 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked about the potential to require
liability insurance.
MR. KLEIN responded that it would be an administrative nightmare
for the ABC Board to review and verify that every license holder
had adequate insurance.
CHAIR FRENCH asked how many liquor licenses are active in the
state.
MR. KLEIN estimated that it's close to 600.
2:13:35 PM
MR. CALL pointed out that corporations don't currently have that
requirement in order to hold a liquor license. He added that it
would be overwhelming to require this of both corporations and
LLCs.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the physical assets of a bar or liquor
store are included when a corporation or LLC is formed around a
liquor license.
MR. CALL responded that the assets of an LLC would be open to
potential claims if it held a liquor license. Because of the
legislation passed in 1999, corporations were created simply to
hold liquor licenses and essentially no assets.
2:16:08 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN again asked if LLCs are subject to the same
rules as corporations with respect to adequate capitalization.
If there is an event, there is something more than the license
itself to respond.
MR. CALL asked if he's speaking specifically of alter ego
liability and undercapitalization legal theories.
SENATOR PASKVAN said yes.
MR. CALL responded that the answer to the question is yes.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if he's saying that if a front corporation
held just the license and no insurance, it would increase the
probability that the liquor license holders would be subject to
personal liability because of that stripped out corporate
structure.
MR. CALL said yes; he believes LLCs have to meet requirements of
alter ego and capitalization similar to corporations.
2:17:46 PM
DALE FOX, President, Alaska Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant &
Retailer's Association (CHARR), stated that the CHARR government
affairs committee unanimously voted to support both sections of
SB 78 - the extension of LLC rights as well as the
taxicab/limousine liability. The taxicab program, which passed
in 2004 with overwhelming support, provides a good service to
patrons and makes the streets safer. The bill corrects the
sunset provision that was overlooked until recently.
CHAIR FRENCH observed that Section 2 addresses a person who
makes the responsible decision to take a taxicab home from a bar
and wants their car to be driven home too. Taxicab companies
will drive an individual's car home, but the company doesn't
want to be on the hook if an accident takes place that's caused
by negligence. He asked Ms. Tempel if that's her understanding
as well.
MS. TEMPEL said yes.
2:19:59 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE added that she doesn't recall why the sunset was
inserted, but the bill was a creative approach to crack down on
drunk driving. Testimony indicated that part of the reason that
people drive drunk is that they don't want to wake up the next
day and not have their car. Alaska CHARR sponsored the idea that
taxicab companies would volunteer to drive the individual and
their vehicle home. When the cab companies asked for liability
relief in the event of an accident, the committee struck a
balance and said if an accident was caused by gross negligence
or reckless or intentional misconduct, the cab company isn't off
the hook. The bill also did not limit the ability of a person to
recover damages under any applicable uninsured or underinsured
motor vehicle insurance coverage. Finally, the bill did not
limit the ability of a person to recover damages under any
applicable liability insurance coverage purchased by or on
behalf of the person being transported. The motor vehicle owner
is considered to have given consent. Without these provisions,
the taxicab companies won't participate, she stated.
2:24:04 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN asked why the taxicab companies' liability
insurance wouldn't cover their professional drivers in the event
they did something wrong.
SENATOR MCGUIRE compared the taxicab companies' concern to that
of a physician who renders assistance in an emergency. The
physician is accommodated under the Good Samaritan Law and the
taxicab companies want an accommodation that is similar in
nature, she said. The taxicab companies' professional liability
insurance doesn't come into play; this is a voluntary program
and the professional company isn't getting a fee.
SENATOR PASKVAN pointed out that if a taxicab company's
professional driver drives an individual's vehicle that has no
coverage, an accident victim would have no opportunity to
recover from the professional driver whose bad conduct hurt or
killed them.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said the coverage that runs with the vehicle
would be granted to an accident victim. The bill clarifies that
uninsured and under insured motor vehicle coverage will be
there, but the section doesn't apply if the accident is the
result of gross negligence or reckless or intentional
misconduct.
2:28:59 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said he wants to make sure he understands when and
to whom subsection (c)(2) would apply.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said it's basically when someone is driving
another person's vehicle.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if it would be the accident victim's
uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle policy that would
provide coverage under Senator Paskvan's hypothetical.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said yes.
SENATOR PASKVAN said his point is that this insulates the at-
fault driver who is a professional.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if that's negligence or gross negligence.
SENATOR PASKVAN said the point is that subsection (c)(2) is
meaningless coverage because the UM or UIM coverage under a
motor vehicle liability policy is contractual between the
vehicle owner and the insurer and that can't be taken away. The
person whose bad conduct resulted in death or injury avoids all
consequences for that conduct.
CHAIR FRENCH speculated that is why the sunset was inserted. He
asked if there has been a problem in any of the 821 rides that
have been given.
SENATOR MCGUIRE reiterated that the committee was looking for
creative alternatives to get more people to stop driving drunk
and decided that this was worth trying. Due to a combination of
things, drunk driving rates have decreased in Alaska in general
and in Anchorage in particular, she said.
2:33:40 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if it's reasonable to assume that a taxicab
driver would check a vehicle's liability insurance before
driving it home for the owner.
MR. FOX said the participating bars check the insurance policy
before calling the taxicab company.
CHAIR FRENCH said that's smart.
SENATOR PASKVAN said he understands the policy call not to go
after a taxicab company's assets beyond its liability coverage.
However, these companies have purchased coverage for the
potential bad conduct of their professional drivers and that
coverage should be available to victims of a professional's bad
conduct.
2:35:49 PM
CHAIR FRENCH questioned why a taxicab company would risk
increasing its insurance costs by even a cent when it is just
trying to help.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he'd like to know if there have been
any accidents in the 821 rides that have been given.
MR. FOX said he hasn't heard of any accidents, but he would
inquire.
SENATOR PASKVAN said he suspects that the accident rates for
these professional drivers would be so low that any increase in
insurance would be de minimis. He added that he's thinking of
the victim who through no fault of his or her own is hurt by a
professional driver and potentially gets nothing from the
vehicle owner or the professional driver.
2:37:52 PM
At ease from 2:37 p.m. to 2:38 p.m.
2:38:50 PM
CHAIR FRENCH reconvened the meeting and announced he would hold
SB 78 in committee.
2:39:08 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair French adjourned the meeting at 2:39 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|