02/01/2012 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB173 | |
| SB165 | |
| Update on Case Dismissals | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 165 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 173 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 1, 2012
1:32 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
SENATE BILL NO. 173
"An Act making corrective amendments to the Alaska Statutes as
recommended by the revisor of statutes; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED SB 173 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 165
"An Act relating to property exemptions for retirement plans;
relating to pleadings, orders, liability, and notices under the
Uniform Probate Code; relating to the Alaska Principal and
Income Act; relating to the Alaska Uniform Transfers to Minors
Act; relating to the disposition of human remains; relating to
insurable interests for life insurance policies; relating to
transfers of individual retirement plans; relating to the
community property of married persons; and amending Rule 301(a),
Alaska Rules of Evidence."
- HEARD & HELD
UPDATE ON CASE DISMISSALS
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 173
SHORT TITLE: 2012 REVISOR'S BILL
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
01/23/12 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/12 (S) JUD
01/30/12 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
01/30/12 (S) Heard & Held
01/30/12 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
BILL: SB 165
SHORT TITLE: PRINCIP.& INC/PROBATE/UTMA/RETIREMT/ETC.
SPONSOR(s): JUDICIARY
01/17/12 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/17/12 (S) JUD, FIN
02/01/12 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
CINDY SMITH, Staff to Senator French, and
Aide to the Senate Judiciary Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 165.
DAVID SHAFTEL, Attorney
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a sectional analysis for SB 165.
DOUGLAS BLATTMACHR, President and CEO
Alaska Trust Company
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for SB 165.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on dismissal rates for
FY11 felony cases.
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed FY11 felony dispositions from the
DOL perspective.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:32:48 PM
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Coghill, Paskvan, McGuire, and French.
Senator Wielechowski during the opening remarks.
SB 173-2012 REVISOR'S BILL
1:33:39 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 173. He noted
that the bill was heard previously and the assistant revisor was
available if there were questions. Finding no public testimony,
he closed it. Finding no committee discussion, he solicited a
motion.
1:34:18 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to report SB 173 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection, SB 173 moved from
the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:34:34 PM
At ease from 1:34 p.m. to 1:36 p.m.
SB 165-PRINCIP.& INC/PROBATE/UTMA/RETIREMT/ETC.
1:36:18 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 165 and asked for
a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS),
version D.
1:36:45 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved [to adopt the work draft CS for SB
165, labeled 27-LS0819\D, as the working document.]
CHAIR FRENCH found no objection and announced that version D was
before the committee.
CINDY SMITH, staff to Senator French and aide to the Senate
Judiciary Committee, read the sponsor statement for SB 165 into
the record.
Alaska first modernized its trust and estate
legislation in 1997. Since then, the trust and estate
planning community continuously makes recommendations
to the legislature for updates and improvements to
Alaska's trust and estate laws to ensure that Alaska
can continue to provide the best possible planning
solutions. Alaska's trust and estate laws have
significant impact on our economy, bringing literally
millions of dollars to the state and creating jobs
within the trust, banking, insurance and legal fields.
Senate Bill 165 provides for amendments to statute in
the following areas:
· Extends protection for retirement plan assets to
the beneficiaries of retirement plans (often the
surviving spouse).
· Provides means of representation for minors and
incapacitated persons in dealing with
settlements of accounts or settlement
agreements.
· Amends the 2003 Alaska Principal and Income Act
to conform with current IRS regulations.
· Provides rules concerning who may control the
disposition of decedents' remains.
· Makes conforming amendments to Alaska's laws
regarding insurable interests to align with
changes to the Uniform Trust Code.
· Provides that IRA interests can be voluntarily
transferred to a family member or trust.
· Makes amendments to Alaska's community property
provisions to update and clarify the ownership
of community property.
· Allows a beneficiary to extend the time that
funds will be held in a Uniform Transfer to
Minors Account
Passage of SB 165 will ensure that Alaska remains the
premier state in which to establish trusts and estates.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Shaftel to provide the sectional
analysis.
1:39:08 PM
DAVID SHAFTEL, Attorney, said he works in the areas of estate
planning and trust and estate administration, and is a member of
an informal group of attorneys, trust officer and financial
planners who have been working with the Legislature since 1997
to suggest improvements to Alaska trust and estate laws. He
described SB 165 as an excellent bill with a number of
substantial provisions that will improve Alaska estate planning
statutes.
1:42:02 PM
MR. SHAFTEL provided the following sectional analysis for SB
165.
Section 1 deals with asset protection for inherited retirement
plans. Current statute protects an individual's interest in
their retirement plan, such as an IRA, from creditor claims, and
this extends this protection to claims of a beneficiary's
creditors. This provision follows federal bankruptcy law.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if the asset has to remain in the IRA.
MR. SHAFTEL replied it has to remain in the IRA, which is most
advantageous to the beneficiary such as a surviving spouse
because it can be spread it over his or her lifetime. Income tax
is only paid when the funds are distributed.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if there is a cap on the amount that can
be withdrawn and still protected under federal bankruptcy law.
MR. SHAFTEL replied that under the 2005 bankruptcy Act the
maximum amount that can be protected is $1 million. That's for
an IRA that an individual creates and contributes to over his or
her lifetime and is rolled over.
SENATOR PASKVAN said he was focusing on the income stream
flowing from the corpus. He asked if an income stream of $20,000
per month, for example, would be protected.
MR. SHAFTEL replied the funds are not protected once
distributed; this provision protects the funds while in the IRA.
1:46:06 PM
SENATOR FRENCH summarized that if he were to pass away and his
wife was the beneficiary of his $1 million IRA, those funds
would be protected against federal bankruptcy claims as well as
state bankruptcy claims under SB 165. He asked if a $100,000
withdrawal would be subject to creditor claims under both
federal and state law.
MR. SHAFTEL answered yes. A creditor cannot reach any of the $1
million while it's in the fund, but a creditor could reach any
distribution from that fund made over the beneficiary's
lifetime.
CHAIR FRENCH commented that it's an interesting balancing act
between the creditor and the inheritor.
1:47:59 PM
MR. SHAFTEL said the next substantive provision is in Section 4,
representation for settlement agreements. Current statute
provides that minors and incapacitated persons may be
represented by another person who has the same interests in the
matter. This clarifies that it applies to both judicial and non-
judicial settlements.
Sections 6-22 amend the 2003 the Alaska Principal and Income
Act, which allows a person creating a new trust, or a trustee of
an existing trust, to adopt a "unitrust" approach for
determining the income of the trust that may have to be
distributed annually. This amendment allows a trustee to select
a unitrust rate ranging from three percent to five percent
averaged over 5 years, rather than the current four percent
rate. An explicit definition of income is provided for a
unitrust and language was added to provide an ordering of the
distributions among types of income and principal. The new
provisions also clarify how unitrust rules will apply to
retirement benefits..
1:56:18 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN asked, under the disqualified trustee issue, if
there were fiduciary standards in law that the trustee must
abide by.
MR. SHAFTEL answered yes; the fiduciary standard is very high.
If there is an abuse of discretion and damages result, the
injured parties can go to court and the trustee could lose his
or her position and be held liable.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if there are disclosure requirements as to
potential conflicts of interest.
MR. SHAFTEL replied there isn't an up-front disclosure for
trustees, but the practice in his office, and others, is to give
newly appointed trustees a pamphlet that discusses their duties
and responsibility so they're made aware up front. The trustees
are required to sign that they've read the pamphlet and that
becomes part of the trust packet.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what the difference is between a trust and a
unitrust.
MR. SHAFTEL explained that the unitrust is a term for the annual
payment that's made that is based on a percentage of the
principal. The trust itself is a broader instrument. For
example, you put $500,000 in a trust for your wife and the
remainder to your kids. The trust concept is that you name a
trustee for that trust, a bank for example. That trust has
certain assets and those are owned by the trustee, the bank, and
the bank must administer that trust according to the directions
in the trust instrument for the benefit of the beneficiaries.
Your wife and children are the beneficiaries in this example.
The unitrust amount refers to the fact that you may have set up
the trust and directed an annual payout to your wife equal to
five percent of the assets in that trust. That concept in itself
is called the unitrust.
CHAIR FRENCH commented that it's simply a designation of the
payout mechanism and percentage.
MR. SHAFTEL agreed.
2:00:55 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the percentages established in Section 11
might have to be adjusted in the future in order to maintain the
strength of a trust's buying power over time.
MR. SHAFTEL replied the Legislature could do that, and another
way would be through the Act itself, which contains provisions
for going to court to get a different percentage. If the trustee
decides to go to court to petition for a different percentage,
everyone gets noticed so that they can exercise their right to
participate. In the above example, both the wife and children
would have the right to participate.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that the court process was addressed in
Section 14.
2:03:22 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the three percent to five percent
payout might become a major tax consideration.
MR. SHAFTEL replied the trustee has to take that into
consideration as well because the distribution is taxed as
ordinary income. If a five percent distribution came out and
that trust made more than five percent income that year, it
would all be taxable to the spouse at that point. That isn't any
different than in the prior structure that says all the income
gets paid out to the spouse every year. For example, if the
spouse is getting a payout of $20,000 and the trust earned
$20,000 of income that year, there is taxability on that full
$20,000.
2:05:49 PM
MR. SHAFTEL said Sections 23-25 amend the Alaska Uniform
Transfers to Minors Act. These new provisions address parental
concerns about some children's ability to responsibly manage
funds. Some years ago Alaska adopted a statute for Uniform
Transfer to Minor Accounts that allow parents to gift up to
$13,000 per year into their child's account tax free. The
custodian of the account, who may or may not be the parent, can
use the funds for the benefit of the minor and when the minor
reaches age 18 or age 21 those funds become the minor's funds.
An IRS provision says the child can have the funds at age 18 or
25 if he or she wants them. Under current state statute the
child may agree not to take possession of the funds at age 18 or
21, but the outer limit is age 25. This provision allows the
money to be held in that account for much longer periods of
time, if the minor consents. It will not run afoul of the
Internal Revenue Code regarding these accounts.
2:11:00 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked if it was necessary to delete the existing
statutory reference to 25 years of age. She expressed concern
that removing the reference would eliminate that option.
MR. SHAFTEL responded the intent was to allow full flexibility
to choice any age.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said she wanted to be sure that this amendment
wouldn't eliminate the ability to extend custodial control up to
age 25, without having to sit down and reason with an 18-year-
old. She worried that deleting the reference in Section 23 and
Section 25 would eliminate that option.
MR. SHAFTEL recalled that the language "in certain
circumstances" referred to the circumstances of going to the
child and asking for consent.
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked Mr. Shaftel to follow up with additional
information about: 1) what the certain circumstances were, 2)
why 21 years of age was referenced - on page 2 of the summary,
and 3) why age 25 was referenced. She reiterated her reluctance
to give up an opportunity for more discretion in distribution.
She said she would understand if this was necessary to maintain
the tax free status of the account, but she wanted to have the
discussion. She also asked how long the distribution can be
delayed and what recourse the child has if he or she wants to
withdraw consent for delayed distribution. She provided an
example.
MR. SHAFTEL responded that this account is very much like a
trust; a custodian is named but the money belongs to the child.
The custodian is like a trustee and is supposed to make
decisions to use the money for the child's benefit and would be
held accountable for an abuse of discretion.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said it's a good reminder that the same
protections apply with respect to abuse of discretion, and that
the custodian is managing the account for the benefit of the
trustee.
MR. SHAFTEL said that's correct and confirmed he would follow up
with the information she requested.
2:18:49 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN questioned whether extending the distribution
farther into the future might increase the likelihood that the
beneficiary would not consent to the extension. He posed the
hypothetical of a minor who at age 21 consented to a 20 year
extension, and asked if in five or so years there would be an
opportunity for a secondary option.
MR. SHAFTEL responded that while it's not always the case,
Alaska law presumes that a person is an adult at age 18 and can
make decisions, enter into contracts and be bound; they are
responsible for their actions. He opined that a person who has
reached age 18 and lacks maturity would likely be resistant to
an extension and very resistant to a long-term extension. He
suggested that a practical approach would be to revisit the
decision to extend at the end of that timeframe. If at that time
there still were reasons for an extension, it could be extended
again.
The language does not speak to the situation of someone who at
age 21 agreed to a 20-year extension and then at age 30 decided
the reason for the extension no longer existed. However, the
matter could be taken to probate court. The custodian would have
to justify any objection they might have, otherwise the
extension would likely be terminated.
2:22:44 PM
CHAIR FRENCH directed attention to page 15, Section 15,
subsection (i)(1), regarding the power of a minor to compel
distribution, and asked for the range of ages that could apply.
MR. SHAFTEL replied depending on the type of transfer, the
distribution can be tied up initially until age 18 or age 21.
But the statute provides that if at age 18 or age 21 the minor
agrees, it can be extended to age 25.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he was saying that the upper limit for an
extension for a minor who does not consent is age 21 and maybe
age 25.
MR. SHAFTEL replied it's age 21 unless the minor consented
previously.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Shaftel to double check and follow up
with an email, and he would distribute it among the members. He
commented that it's a nice circuit breaker for the minor.
MR. SHAFTEL said that Section 26 relating to a decedent's
remains was a suggestion by directors of funeral homes to give
guidance as to who to take directions from in the disposition of
human remains. This provision provides a disposition document
that prioritizes the people who will have this authority and
estate planning attorneys will have their clients sign the form.
The provision includes some technical areas. For example, if
people put directions regarding disposition of their remains the
will does not have to be probated. There is also a liability
provision that says that funeral homes that follow this
direction will not be held liable.
2:28:09 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said he's pleased this is being addressed, because
it can be very traumatic to try to get a body released.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if funeral home operators had raised the
issue of same sex domestic partners.
MR. SHAFTEL replied that wasn't mentioned directly, but a person
could designate a domestic partner as the agent on the
prioritized list.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if that was on page 16, lines 13-14.
MR. SHAFTEL answered yes.
CHAIR FRENCH added that it would need to be done in advance.
MR. SHAFTEL said one of the benefits of this approach is that it
allows a person to decide who will have that authority.
Section 27 deals with insurable interests. The concept in the
law generally is that for one person to buy an insurance policy
and benefit from the death of another person there must be some
sort of close connection between the people. Most states have
statutes regarding insurable interests, but many are unclear.
This provision generally follows the Uniform Trust Code
provisions to cure this problem.
Section 28 deals with transfers of IRA interests. This provision
clarifies that an individual may transfer his or her IRA into a
grantor trust. The transferred assets must be accounted for
under the gift tax but those assets and the growth would not be
included in the gross estate and taxed at death.
CHAIR FRENCH asked how many jurisdictions had adopted this rule.
MR. SHAFTEL replied this wasn't found in other jurisdictions, it
was suggested as something that would be beneficial in
minimizing estate taxes at death.
Sections 29-33 add clarification to Alaska's optional community
property system that was enacted in 1998. It clarifies that if
the spouses determine that an asset is community property, the
form of title is not determinative. If the title of the property
is in the form of survivorship between the spouses, the
presumption is that the survivorship provision does not change.
If a spouse designates a beneficiary for an interest in what is
community property, it is only effective for that spouse's half
interest, unless the other spouse consents in writing. There are
also provisions about remedies for improper transfers of
community property and limitation periods during which those
remedies can be pursued.
2:42:17 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if the surviving spouse's claim would
apply only to property that's designated with a right of
survivorship or any property acquired during the term of the
marriage.
MR. SHAFTEL replied it would not be limited to survivorship
property. That was just one area of concern. It could be that a
$500,000 account was just in the husband's name but the two
spouses together entered into a community property agreement
regarding that account. If the husband decides during his
lifetime to make gifts of it to his children from a former
marriage, the wife can still claim half the money.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Blattmachr to provide his views on the
bill.
2:43:57 PM
DOUGLAS BLATTMACHR, Alaska Trust Company, stated support for SB
165 and urged the committee to pass the bill. It brings
clarification and good provisions that Alaskans can use.
CHAIR FRENCH stated that Mr. Shaftel would be invited back to
finish explaining the repealers and the last few indirect rule
changes. He announced he would hold SB 165 in committee.
^UPDATE on CASE DISMISSALS
2:44:54 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the final order of business would be a
follow through on an issue that came up during the recent Crime
Summit regarding case dismissals. He recognized Nancy Meade with
the Court System and John Skidmore with Department of Law.
2:45:38 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, said she
would address two separate issues. The first is a follow up to
the Crime Summit where she brought up the statistic that in FY11
23.5 percent of felony cases were dismissed. Some members of the
committee were surprised about that. The second, separate but
not unrelated, issue is the time it is taking for felonies to be
disposed.
She directed attention to six one-page reports showing felony
case dispositions for FY09, FY10 and FY11 and calendar years
2009, 2010 and 2011. The FY11 report directly addresses the 23.5
percent felony dismissal rate. [In FY11 there were 6,218
dispositions; .5 percent of cases were acquittals, 75.6 percent
were convictions, 23.4 percent were dismissals and .5 percent
were categorized as other.] The 1,452 (23.5 percent) dismissed
cases were categorized by the CourtView case management system.
The report shows that 1,065 or 73.3 percent of those cases were
dismissed by the prosecution under Criminal Rule 43(a). She
noted that Mr. Skidmore could address the reasons.
2:48:23 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if the [4,703] convictions were all felony
convictions.
MS. MEADE answered yes and added that in cases where a person is
charged with more than one crime, the case is categorized
according to the most serious charge within the charging
document.
CHAIR FRENCH posed the hypothetical of a person who is charged
with vehicle theft, possession of marijuana and possession of
cocaine. He asked if the case would count as a conviction, not a
dismissal, if the person pleads to the vehicle theft and the
drug charges "go away," so to speak.
MS. MEADE answered yes.
CHAIR FRENCH summarized that all the offenses that come under
one charging document will be resolved as one case.
MS. MEADE agreed.
2:50:26 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director, Criminal Division, Department of Law
(DOL) offered to proceed as directed.
CHAIR FRENCH referred to the Alaska Court System FY11 report of
criminal case time to disposition and observed that 28.3 percent
of superior court felonies were dismissed between six months and
a year after they were filed. He asked why it takes so long for
the prosecution to say it couldn't go forward with a case.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that the reason is plea negotiations.
Using Senator French's hypothetical, the prosecution might make
an offer of one year in jail on that case, but while out on bail
the person commits another similar crime. To resolve both cases
the prosecution might increase the jail time to 2 years on the
first case and agree to dismiss the second case. He opined that,
that accounts for a large percentage of those dismissals.
In other situations the prosecution may learn more details about
a case as the investigation progresses. The report reflects that
some cases remain open and active for 1-2 years and some remain
open for longer than 2 years. It's important to understand that
the investigation continues throughout that entire time, and
that the case sometimes gets better and sometimes weaker. The
prosecution may try to resolve a weaker case through a plea
negotiation, or they may decide to dismiss the case.
MR. SKIDMORE apologized that he could not provide percentages
for those cases but could say that 70,000 counts were filed in
2011 and 14,000 were dismissed. Over half of those were
dismissed because the person pled to something else.
He explained that dismissals are broken into three large
categories: evidentiary reasons, discretionary reasons and other
legal issues. Evidentiary reasons include things like the mens
rea, an issue with a witness and litigation later in that case,
all of which cause the prosecution to reevaluate the case. In
discretionary dismissals the prosecutor decided to do something
other than move forward. That can be because it is essentially a
civil matter or the defendant has pled to another case or the
counts are consolidated. Other legal issues can include a
problem with Rule 45, a deceased or incompetent defendant or
that the case was transferred to another agency.
2:56:39 PM
MR. SKIDMORE noted that the report that Ms. Meade discussed
categorized as dismissals 224 cases that were not filed. From
DOL's perspective those cases are not counted as dismissals.
CHAIR FRENCH highlighted that those cases are disposed of very
quickly and have little impact on a defendant. It's an instance
of the police arresting somebody and the DA's office not filing
a charge.
MR. SKIDMORE agreed and pointed out that the FY11 time to
disposition report incorporates those 224 cases as dismissals in
the first 120 days. He said another number that jumps out on the
disposition report is the 96 cases that are categorized as
dismissed due to delay in superior court transfer or Criminal
Rule 5(e). That says when somebody is charged with a felony
offense the state has 10 days if in custody and 20 days if out
of custody to take the case to grand jury. If that doesn't
happen in those timeframes, the case will not be transferred
from district court into superior court and therefore can't go
forward. He said the grand jury is essentially a screening
process to decide whether or not there is sufficient evidence
for the case to move forward as a felony.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if it's a dismissal with prejudice or
without.
MR. SKIDMORE replied it's a dismissal without prejudice. That
means the DA can indict later on and that's what happens in
approximately half of those cases. To the court system that
number suggests that 96 cases were dismissed due to Court Rule
5, but it doesn't show up that way in DOL's numbers.
He referenced Mr. Svobodny's comments during the Crime Summit
about the appropriateness of having one case management system
and highlighted that DOL's numbers for FY11 show a 14.5 percent
dismissal rate for felonies, including the plea negotiations
mentioned previously.
3:02:17 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Meade to address the second question, the
time to get a case to disposition in felony court.
MS. MEADE referred to a report showing the number of days to
disposition for each type of felony at filing. She highlighted
that for all felonies the mean from filing to disposition is 216
days, whether it's a sentence, dismissal or acquittal. Also
important is that 89.4 percent of all felonies are disposed
within 181 to 365 days. She further highlighted that the more
serious offenses take longer to dispose. They take longer to
prepare for both the prosecution and defense. She noted that the
mean to dispose unclassified felony murder cases is 550 days, or
18 months as opposed to a class C felony at 165 days.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what "felony conversion" refers to.
MS. MEADE explained that the column shows the cases that were
disposed before the conversion to CourtView.
CHAIR FRENCH thanked Ms. Meade and Mr. Skidmore for the charts
and discussion.
3:06:50 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair French adjourned the meeting at 3:06 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 165 Sponsor Statement.doc |
SJUD 2/1/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 165 |
| SB 165 Sectional Analysis.doc |
SJUD 2/1/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 165 |
| CS for SB 165 version D.pdf |
SJUD 2/1/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 165 |
| SB 165 Explanation of Changes Version D.doc |
SJUD 2/1/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 165 |
| SB 165 Letter of Support.pdf |
SJUD 2/1/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 165 |