Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/04/2002 01:35 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
May 4, 2002
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gene Therriault, Chair
Senator Randy Phillips, Vice Chair
Senator Ben Stevens
Senator Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Rick Halford
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 285
"An Act adding a second verse to the official Alaska state song."
HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 509(STA)
"An Act relating to Alaska children's trust registration plates;
and providing for an effective date."
MOVED CSHB 509(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 363
"An Act relating to electioneering communications and
communications intended to influence the outcome of an election
and to campaign misconduct in the second degree; and providing
for an effective date."
MOVED CSSB 363(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 285 - No previous action to record.
HB 509 - See State Affairs minutes dated 4/30/02.
SB 363 - See State Affairs minutes dated 4/23/02 and 4/25/02.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Bill Lawrence
Aide to Representative Carl Morgan
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 285.
Ms. Constance Davis
5405 Thane Rd.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 285.
Ms. Constance Monroe
th
120 W. 9 St.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 285.
Ms. Harriet Roberts
2305 Franklin St. #604
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 285.
Mr. J. Allan MacKinnon
P.O. Box 32760
Juneau, AK 99803-2760
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 285.
Mr. Joe Balash
Aide to the Senate State Affairs Committee
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 363.
Ms. Brooke Miles
Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Department of Administration
2221 E. Northern Lights
Anchorage, AK 99508-4149
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 363.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-28, SIDE A
1:35 p.m.
CHAIRMAN GENE THERRIAULT called the Senate State Affairs
Committee meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Present were Senators
Phillips, Stevens and Chairman Therriault. Senator Davis arrived
at 1:40 p.m.
The first order of business before the committee was HB 285.
HB 285-SECOND VERSE OF ALASKA'S STATE SONG
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said it was not his intent to move HB 285
that day but he would like to hear public testimony.
MR. BILL LAWRENCE, Aide to Representative Carl Morgan, sponsor of
HB 285, said it was the appropriate time to officially add the
second verse of the Alaska State Song to state law because it was
th
the 75 anniversary of the Alaska State Flag. He said it would
be a long overdue honor to the late Carol Beery Davis, who
authored the second verse and gifted it to the University of
Alaska in 1987. The verse commemorated Bennie Benson, who
designed the Alaska State Flag, and recognized the natural beauty
and splendor of Alaska. He said the second verse had been sung
throughout Alaska for many years. He said:
Officially putting the second verse in the state
statute will not solve all of our problems, but it's a
small step toward creating peace and harmony among all
the people in the state. It's basically the right time
to do the right thing.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there were any questions for Mr.
Lawrence. There were none.
MS. CONSTANCE DAVIS, daughter of Carol Beery Davis read the
following statement:
I would like to give you a little summary of my family
history on this eventful occasion. My paternal
grandfather arrived in Juneau early in 1891 for a short
stay, working for the Nowell Mining Co. as a
bookkeeper. With paints, brushes and canvas, my
grandmother landed at the Juneau docks a few months
later. She planned to paint Alaskan scenery for a
month or two. The following year they were married in
the Log Cabin church. Both of them came from England.
My mother came to Juneau in 1920 to play for the silent
movies at the Palace Theater, a three-month, temporary
job that lasted for seven years. By that time, Marie
Drake was a good friend, the contest to choose a flag
for Alaska was underway, and my father was a member of
the Final Awards Committee to choose the flag. Mother
took notes of the events at that time. Later she wrote
that once the design was chosen, Marie felt that the
school children of Alaska would understand the
historical event better if they had words to recite,
something like those in her head. The Territorial
Commissioner of Education gave his approval, and so the
first step towards a song was born.
When mother was approached to add a second verse to the
state song, she believed that it was important to do
so, and that her old friend, Marie, would approve.
Using the themes of unity, history, progress and the
state's natural beauty, she carefully composed the
verse with her enduring love for Alaska. It was her
last gift. She was 95 years old.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there were any questions for Ms.
Davis. There were none.
MS. CONSTANCE MONROE said she was an adult educator who was
retired from the Department of Education. When she came to
Alaska in 1971, she felt the state song was limited in its
recognition of only gold miners and not other Alaskans,
especially the first Alaskans. She said she discovered that this
was not oversight, it was a historical situation because the
first verse written by Marie Drake was initially a poem to honor
the flag and was not expected to be the state song.
She said she was a good friend with Representative Alvin
Osterback's wife Marie because of their work on the Governor's
alcohol and drug commission. She said she spoke with
Representative and Mrs. Osterback and Senator Frank Ferguson
about the possibility of having a second verse for the state song
and opening it up for a statewide contest. She said they thought
about it and discussed it with their colleagues and came to the
conclusion that it probably wouldn't be advantageous for the
State to hold a contest. However, if there was a gift of someone
providing a second verse, they could look at it and see whether
or not it was appropriate.
She lost her job in 1985 because of the economic downturn. She
said she called Carol Beery Davis and said she would probably be
moving and was very sad that they never got a second verse for
the Alaska State Song. The next morning she received a call from
Carol Beery Davis asking her to come to look at a draft of the
second verse that was going to be a gift to the State. Carol
Beery Davis asked if she would take it to Representative
Osterback and Senator Ferguson and see if they thought it was
appropriate. She said they loved it.
MS. MONROE said the second verse had been a struggle since the
1970s. It passed the House of Representatives in 1986 but failed
in the Senate. She said she hoped the committee's leadership
would provide support for the second verse. She said it honored
everyone in Alaska including the first Alaskans, minorities and
people who came from everywhere to live in the state.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked why they felt a contest was not
appropriate at the time.
MS. MONROE said they were concerned that there would be too much
disagreement over what the second verse was supposed to be. She
said they couldn't come up with guidelines that were not
insulting and it would have been too difficult for a committee to
choose something. She said they didn't have the financial
backing. She noted that when the gift was received, they went
through the proper procedures with the University in Fairbanks to
have the verse held in trust.
She said the second verse had been sung across the state. She
said because she was working with community education and school
districts she was able to request that the second verse be sung
at graduations. She said when Senator Ferguson was honored for
his work with vocational education, the second verse was sung at
the ceremony.
She said Alvin and Marie Osterback, who have always been strong
supporters, are still waiting to see the second verse come to
fruition. She said she thought the whole native caucus felt it
was time as well.
She said they should have held a contest, but they didn't have
the leadership at the time to do so. They couldn't use money
from the Department of Education. She noted that there was not a
contest held for the first verse and they wanted some continuity
in how the verse was chosen.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said he went to the museum and saw Bennie
Benson's submission for the Alaska State Flag contest. He said
Bennie had submitted a written piece along with the design and a
lot of the phrases in the song came from that. He said the first
verse was a carryover and the submission of the first verse was
part of the submission of the flag.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he thought Senator Phillips was trying
to say that although the first verse was not part of a contest,
the wording was taken from the concepts in Bennie Benson's
written comments on his flag submission. Therefore, it had
stemmed from the contest. He said he asked a question about the
Alaska State Song in his questionnaire. In response, a number of
people said they had some ideas. He said it was also suggested
to him that a well-known music instructor in Fairbanks might have
an excellent idea. He said the way the first verse links in with
the contest for the design of the flag, people are interested in
having an opportunity to suggest wording if there is to be a
second verse. He said that if people had known the State was
looking for a gift of a second verse, there probably would have
been a lot of suggestions.
MS. MONROE said that was probably true. She asked if he would
have liked to judge that.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he understood that would be a difficult
task.
MS. MONROE said she strongly supported Carol Beery Davis' verse
as the second verse of the Alaska State Song. She said it was
beautiful that a pioneer of Alaska wrote it as a gift to the
first Alaskans, minorities and all the residents of the state.
She said she thought the words were appropriate and was hoping
that it would be passed out of committee.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there were any additional questions
for Ms. Monroe. There were none.
MS. HARRIET ROBERTS said she was retired from the Department of
Health and Social Services. She said she had lived in Alaska for
20 years. She said when she came to Alaska she had the Alaska
State Song card in her purse. She said the ferry trip took
several days and her husband couldn't sleep. He asked for the
card because he wanted to read it. She said he couldn't believe
they were actually in Alaska. He said it was so beautiful it was
like heaven. She said, "When you sing this song, all this
flashes in your mind." She said when the second verse came to
the Legislature, Camp #2 of the Alaska Native Brotherhood and the
Alaska Native Sisterhood passed a resolution in support of the
second verse. She said she couldn't speak for the other camps,
but she was sure they supported it as well. She said Dorothy
Wallace had also come forward in support of the verse.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if she was representing the Alaska
Native Brotherhood and the Alaska Native Sisterhood Camp #2.
MS. ROBERTS said their grand president Delores Cadiente was on a
trip and their local president Alberta Aspen wasn't able to
attend the meeting so she was testifying for them.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there were any questions for Ms.
Roberts. There were none.
MR. J. ALLAN MACKINNON said he was a lifelong Alaskan and
resident of Juneau. He wanted to speak in support of the second
verse and felt it should have been adopted years ago.
He said he was one of the founders and director of the Juneau
Oratorio Choir and was supportive of the Alaska Youth Choir. He
said the musical director of the Alaska Youth Choir, Missouri
Smythe, could not attend the hearing. He said the Alaska Youth
Choir incorporated the second verse into their programming at all
their presentations. He traveled with the group to Brooklyn, New
York and they performed the second verse there. He said the
Juneau Oratorio Choir was probably one of the first choruses to
sing both verses during one governor's inauguration ceremony.
He said Carol Beery Davis was very much a friend to the native
community. She was authorized to translate the native oral
tradition of songs and other pieces onto paper, many of which
were preserved in museums and the State Library.
He said he spent 10 or 12 years learning piano from Carol Beery
Davis. He remembered her talking about Marie Drake and Elinor
Dusenbury. He said the three were contemporaries and very well
known and well thought of in their writings and poetry. Marie
Drake took certain elements of Bennie Benson's wording and put
them into a poem that was of the proper length and meter. Carol
Beery Davis was a contemporary of Marie Drake's and also used
some of Bennie Benson's wording, creating a verse of the proper
length and meter.
He said there were certain times when contests were appropriate,
but this was not one of them. He said naming a state ferry, town
sites or other things might be appropriate contests for the
youth. He said his teenaged son wrote poetry but he would not
want to have to consider his writing in a contest setting.
He urged the committee to adopt the second verse as it was and
make it an official part of the statutes. He said it would be
taking the writings of two contemporary individuals who were very
well thought of out of historical context if they were to reopen
the issue of who would write the second verse.
2:00 p.m.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there were any questions for Mr.
MacKinnon. There were none. He asked if there was anybody else
who wished to testify on HB 285. There was nobody. He announced
that the bill would probably come back up for final action on
Tuesday, May 7, 2002.
HB 285 was held in committee.
The next order of business before the committee was HB 509.
HB 509-ALASKA CHILDREN'S TRUST LICENSE PLATES
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said there was a hearing on HB 509 the
previous week. He said he spoke with Senator Davis regarding the
bill because she had not been able to attend the meeting. He
noted they had stopped short of a final vote. He said if there
were not any amendments from committee members, he would
entertain a motion on HB 509.
SENATOR DAVIS moved HB 509 out of committee with attached fiscal
note and individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted there was a slight increase in revenue
on the fiscal note.
There being no objection, HB 509 was moved out of committee with
attached fiscal note and individual recommendations.
The final order of business before the committee was SB 363.
SB 363-CAMPAIGN FINANCE PROVISIONS
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted there was a new proposed CS, version L.
MR. JOE BALASH, Aide to the Senate State Affairs Committee,
outlined the following changes in the CS:
· The former Section 1 regarding the "paid for by" statement
was removed.
· Testimony from Ms. Brooke Miles of the Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC) suggested that the 15-5 reporting burden
on contributors might be unnecessary so Sec. 9 repealed that
requirement. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the CS conformed
to that by removing "contribution and" from contribution and
expense expenditure reporting requirements.
· It was decided that defining communications that could and
could not be regulated in the definitions section and making
them part of the definition of an expenditure would
accomplish the intent of SB 363. If something were defined
as an expenditure, it would be subject to all the disclosure
requirements and restrictions would be put on where money
could be raised. Money could not be raised from a
corporation or labor union and no more than 10% of it could
be raised outside of the state. Depending upon the type of
organization there were limitations on the amount that could
be raised from individuals. To this end, the language,
"includes an express communication and an electioneering
communication, but does not include and issues
communication" was added in lines 17-19 in Sec. 6.
· Sec. 7 defined a communication. This was not intended to be
an exhaustive list of items that might be a communication
but identified the kind of things that were traditionally
seen in campaigns.
o Paragraph (13) excluded communications that cost $500
or less to comply with the Supreme Court's 1995
MacIntire decision. In that case a woman felt so
strongly about a local school bond proposal that she
printed a flyer and distributed it. She was found to
be in violation of Ohio statutes. The exception
provided protection to keep that from happening.
o Paragraph (14) defined an electioneering communication
as a communication that "occurs within 30 days
preceding a primary election or a municipal election,
or within 60 days preceding a general election,"
"directly or indirectly identifies a candidate" and
"addresses an issue of national, state, or local
political importance and attributes a position on that
issue to the candidate identified." This came from the
Buckley v. Valeo decision, which said express advocacy
could be regulated but issue advocacy could not be
regulated. Finding a line between the two had been
very difficult. Congress recently passed the Shays-
Meehan version of the McCain-Feingold legislation. The
parts of the definition regarding the timeframe and
identifying a candidate came from that legislation.
The other aspect of the definition regarding
attributing a position to a candidate was a further
step toward trying to define advocacy that can be
regulated.
o Paragraph (15) defined an express communication as "a
communication that, when read as a whole, and with
limited reference to external events, is susceptible of
no other reasonable interpretation but as an
exhortation to vote for or against a specific
candidate." This came from the Furgatch decision.
nd
· Sec. 8 changed the crime of campaign misconduct in the 2
degree to conform to the changes in SB 363.
· Sec. 9 repealed AS 15.13.080, which was the 15-5 reporting
requirement.
· Sec. 10 provided for an immediate effective date.
SENATOR PHILLIPS wanted to make it clear that the section
regarding the "paid for by" statements had been removed from SB
363.
MR. BALASH said it had been.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said the courts wanted a bright line so
citizens would know when they crossed the line and were doing an
activity that required disclosure or had limitations on funding
sources. The courts said if the citizens had no way of knowing
when they crossed the line, it had a chilling effect on free
speech because they might not express opinions that might get
them into trouble. He said a clear line was drawn in SB 363. He
said the Buckley v. Valeo decision listed some words that had
been taken as a complete list. He said with the definition of
express communication in SB 363, those magic words wouldn't
necessarily need to be used for a communication to qualify.
MR. BALASH said that was correct.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that went back to the Furgatch decision,
which said it was nonsensical to use a list of words because
anybody with a thesaurus could circumvent it.
MR. BALASH said that was correct.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said a communication such as, "We want to
develop industry in Alaska, Senator Gene Therriault has been
striving to create jobs and we just wanted you to know that,"
would qualify as an electioneering communication even though it
didn't say to vote for or against the candidate. Because it
identified an issue of importance, identified a candidate and
attributed a position to that candidate and was being done around
an election it would be an electioneering communication. He said
SB 363 tried to draw a line that indicated to a citizen the
criteria under which you were trying to influence the outcome of
an election. The courts said that when you were trying to
influence the outcome of an election, the government had a right
to limit the influence individuals or out-of-state sources of
funds could exert on elections. He said SB 363 combined a number
of court cases and the McCain-Feingold legislation to try to
define when the intent of issue advocacy is to affect the outcome
of an election. He asked Mr. Balash if he wished to discuss
anything else.
MR. BALASH said the standard of intending to influence the
outcome of an election was used throughout AS 15.13 and tried to
describe the things that were done in the course of a campaign
th
and the disclosure of those items. The 4 Circuit Court of
Appeals in Perry v. Bartlett decided that a similar definition
used in North Carolina was too vague and not specific enough for
the public to know when they were required to disclose their
th
publications. Because this wasn't a 9 Circuit Court of Appeals
or a U.S. Supreme Court decision, it didn't necessarily apply in
Alaska. However, it should be looked at to find out exactly what
standard was used in deciding the case.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there were any further questions for
Mr. Balash. There were none.
MS. BROOKE MILES, Executive Director of APOC, said she applauded
the committee for their courage in defining express communication
and issues communication. She said APOC staff really appreciated
a bright line being drawn. She said she suspected the courts
would decide the definitions eventually. She wanted to discuss
Section 1. She said she did not have a problem with removing the
contributor reporting requirements, but she did find issue with
the language. She said it would probably be better to delete all
the language in this section after the word "commission" on page
1, line 7. She said the rest of the language in (d)(1)(A) and
(B) would cause confusion. She said independent expenditures
made of behalf of a candidate or ballot question were reportable
in any amount so the $500 limit would cause confusion. She said
a strict reading might compel a group that talked to a candidate
and wanted to buy a communication to think they would have to
report.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he wanted to make sure that she was
suggesting to delete all of the language in Section 1 after the
word "commission" on page 1, line 7.
MS. MILES said that was correct.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked if that would end on page 2 at line 9.
MS. MILES said that was correct.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if this deletion would change other
sections of the statute.
MS. MILES said it would be necessary to retain paragraph (2)
because it talked about being exempted from the reporting
requirement because of the MacIntire decision.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if she was talking about the language
in Sec. 2.
MS. MILES said the language starting on page 2, line 4 provides
for the MacIntire exemption for small expenditures. She said
that should not be deleted.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said he wanted to make sure he understood what
she was suggesting. He said it would be necessary to put a
period on page 1, line 7, after the word "commission," and delete
everything thereafter on page 1 and the first three lines on page
2, but leave paragraph (2), which would be renumbered to (1).
MS. MILES said it could also be incorporated but his description
was correct.
SENATOR PHILLIPS moved a conceptual Amendment #1 putting a period
after the word "commission" on page 1, line 7, deleting
everything after that on page 1 and lines 1-3 on page 2 and
leaving paragraph (2).
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he wasn't so sure the drafters would
want to put a period after "commission."
SENATOR PHILLIPS said that was where the section would end.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said they would probably want to put a comma
and go on to paragraph (2). He said as long as it was a
conceptual amendment, the drafters could work with it.
TAPE 02-28, SIDE B
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there was any objection to
conceptual Amendment #1.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked Ms. Miles if that was all.
MS. MILES said it was. She said she was happy to see Internet
communications included. She said APOC had been discussing
Internet communications more and more over the last few years and
they considered them to be subject to the law but it would be
helpful to have it codified.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said the Internet was becoming a bigger tool
for good and bad. He wanted to make sure that dropping the 15-5
requirement was not going to create problems. He also wanted to
be sure the 15-5s would be needless paperwork after the changes
in SB 363.
MS. MILES said APOC staff believed there was probably still some
value in the 15-5s for contributions given to political parties
or ballot proposition groups, the two groups to which an
individual can contribute more than $500. She said $5000 could
be contributed to a political party in a calendar year and
contributions to ballot proposition groups were unlimited. She
said the 15-5s provided meaningful information in the time
periods when other information was not available. She said
without the 15-5s the first information on contributions to
ballot proposition groups would not be available until 30 days
before the general election. She said that would also hold true
to some extent with political parties.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if Ms. Miles only saw that problem with
regards to contributions to ballot proposition groups.
MS. MILES said yes.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if that could be easily retained.
MS. MILES said the 15-5 language could be written to require a
contributor report for contributions of more than $500 made to
ballot proposition groups. She said ballot propositions were
often very controversial and if the 15-5 report was required for
contributions to ballot proposition groups, APOC could have some
information available for the public.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said Senator Phillips told him they could
work on that in the Senate Rules Committee.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said SB 363 was a Senate Rules Committee bill.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he wanted to deal with the 15-5 reports
and remove the requirements that didn't make sense. But if they
were a source of valuable information, he didn't want to lose
that. He said Ms. Miles had said it was nice to have bright
lines.
MS. MILES said bright lines make it easier to conduct training,
review the courts, and identify advertisements.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said the courts like bright lines as well.
MS. MILES said it would probably go before the courts eventually.
She said the definitions seemed very similar to the new federal
statutes, especially the timelines separating electioneering from
issue advocacy.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said they were from the federal legislation.
SB 363 added some further definition to electioneering
communications by adding that they attributed a position on an
issue to an identified candidate.
MS. MILES said for the most part, the changes would be enacted
before advocacy became a big issue.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said communications that would be defined as
electioneering communications would be allowed at any other time
except for right before an election.
MS. MILES said if they did it right before the election, they
would be required to file a report and the money spent on the
communication would have to be funding authorized by the State.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that was because at that point the
communication would be trying to influence the outcome of an
election and the State would be able to require disclosure and
limitations on outside sources of money.
MS. MILES said that was correct. She said an outside corporation
would not be allowed to engage in that kind of activity within
close proximity to an election.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked about the fiscal note.
MS. MILES said it would be revised.
MR. BALASH said he had a fiscal note for $30,000 to distribute to
the committee.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if that fiscal note would change with
the new CS.
MS. MILES hoped it would. She said it would still be necessary
to conduct a training program so everybody understood the changes
in the law but the other problems she had discussed earlier would
no longer exist.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT read the following from the fiscal note:
This bill creates additional requirements for
candidates and groups when identifying their paid
political communications. It represents significant
administrative difficulties in that it also creates a
new kind of political communication (electioneering)
which is defined and enforced by the Division of
Elections. The funding request is for training, paper
and printing, and enforcement.
MS. MILES said she didn't see the same enforcement concerns.
Initially, she was concerned with the requirement that production
costs be included in the "paid for by" statement. She said most
of the inquiries APOC received were about the "paid for by"
statement and they spent a lot of time working with groups and
candidates to get them corrected. She said a lot of people might
have made mistakes with production costs because they might not
have been sure of them and given an estimate. She said with the
new CS that would no longer be a concern. She still felt it was
necessary to have funds to let everybody know about the changes.
SENATOR DAVIS asked if the CS had been adopted.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said it had not. He noted that they had
discussed conceptual Amendment #1 without the CS before them. He
said they were working on an unofficial document. He asked for a
motion on the L version.
SENATOR PHILLIPS moved the L version of SB 363 with conceptual
Amendment #1 out of committee with attached fiscal note and
individual recommendations.
There being no objection, CSSB 363(STA) moved out of committee
with attached fiscal note and individual recommendations.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the Senate
State Affairs Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|