Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/18/2003 03:31 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 STANDING COMMITTEE
March 18, 2003
3:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gary Stevens, Chair
Senator John Cowdery, Vice Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Gretchen Guess
Senator Lyman Hoffman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 10
Relating to the Pledge of Allegiance.
MOVED SJR 10 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 140(efd fld)
"An Act relating to benefits for retired teachers or employees
who participated in retirement incentive programs and are
subsequently reemployed as a commissioner."
MOVED SCS HB 140(efd fld) (STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 115
"An Act allowing expenses of the correctional industries program
that may be financed from the correctional industries fund to
include the salaries and benefits of state employees."
MOVED SB 115 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 24
"An Act providing special absentee ballots for voters in remote
areas."
MOVED SB 24 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 46(STA)
"An Act relating to printing of ballot titles and propositions
on primary election ballots."
MOVED CSHB 46 (STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
SJR 10 - No previous action to record.
HB 140 - No previous action to record.
SB 115 - No previous action to record.
SB 24 - No previous action to record.
HB 46 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Jacqueline Tupou
Staff to Senator Lyda Green
Alaska State Capitol, Room 516
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SJR 10
Guy Bell
Director, Division of Retirement and Benefits
Department of Administration
PO Box 110200
Juneau, AK 99811-0200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 140
Jerry Burnett
Director, Division of Administrative Services
Department of Corrections
431 N. Franklin, Suite 400
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 115
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
Alaska State Capitol, Room 11
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor SB 24
Sara Boario
Chief of Staff to Senator Georgianna Lincoln
Alaska State Capitol, Room 11
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 24
Virginia Breeze
Division of Elections
P.O. Box 110017
Juneau, AK 99811-0017
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 24 and HB 46
Representative Mike Hawker
Alaska State Capitol, Room 434
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 46
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-9, SIDE A
CHAIR GARY STEVENS called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:31 p.m. Present were Senators
Dyson, Cowdery, Guess and Chair Stevens. Senator Hoffman arrived
momentarily.
The first order of business was SJR 10.
SJR 10-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RESOLUTION
MS. JACQUELINE TUPOU, staff to Senator Lyda Green, paraphrased
from the sponsor statement:
Senate Joint Resolution 10 resolves that the Alaska
State Legislature supports a review by the United
States Supreme Court of the Newdow V. U.S. Congress
decision.
In Newdow vs. United States Congress, a panel of the
Ninth Circuit decided that the recitation of the
Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was
unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
confirmed this decision and granted a 90 day stay to
the California School District to appeal to the
Supreme Court. If this decision is not reviewed,
public schools in nine western states, including
Alaska, will be banned from reciting the pledge.
SJR 10 expresses the support of the Alaska State
Legislature for the review of Newdow vs. U.S. Congress
by the United States Supreme Court and of our firm
belief of the principles and ideals stated in our
nation's Pledge of Allegiance.
I ask for your support in the passage of this
resolution.
There were no questions.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for a motion.
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY made a motion and asked for unanimous
consent to move SJR 10 and attached fiscal note from committee
with individual recommendations. There being no objection, it
was so ordered.
HB 140-BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN RIP PARTICIPANTS
CHAIR GARY STEVENS explained the House removed the effective
date clause for HB 140. He asked Mr. Guy Bell to comment on the
legislation.
MR. GUY BELL, Division of Retirement and Benefits Director,
testified via teleconference and described the legislation as
narrowly construed.
It would allow a person who has participated in a state
sponsored retirement incentive program to return to Public
Employees Retirement System (PERS) or Teachers Employees
Retirement System (TRS) employment as a State of Alaska
commissioner without losing any benefits from the retirement
incentive program (RIP). There would be no actuarial impact on
the retirement systems because the employee and the employer
paid the full cost of the RIP at retirement so the fiscal note
is zero.
The individual would also be able to participate in the waiver
process enacted by the Legislature two years ago. This means the
person could continue receiving his or her retirement benefits
by agreeing not to accrue any additional retirement service
during reemployment.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked him to clarify that a retired person
who took the RIP would not be eligible for additional PERS or
TRS benefits.
MR. BELL explained a person who has taken the RIP and wants to
return to state employment is subject to substantial RIP
penalties. The penalties are up to 110 percent of the benefits
they received through the RIP. They lose the incentive credit
they received by virtue of the RIP, the cost of the benefits
already received, and they waive the benefits they earned as a
result of the RIP.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if anyone had ever chosen to pay back
the 110 percent.
MR. BELL thought perhaps one or two had done so. He said he
could get the exact numbers but it would be a very small
percentage.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS said that wasn't necessary, but it was
interesting that so few had taken advantage of the option.
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY asked for confirmation there would be no
additional cost to the state beyond the earned salary and
benefits.
MR. BELL said that was correct.
SENATOR FRED DYSON asked for an estimated individual amount for
a 110 percent payback.
MR. BELL said it could be tens of thousands of dollars depending
on the individual circumstances.
SENATOR DYSON then asked if it might be up to $100,000.
MR. BELL thought the amounts would probably be less than
$50,000, but individual circumstances vary tremendously.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS asked him why there were penalties at all
if there was no fiscal impact.
MR. BELL replied there were three different retirement incentive
program bills and the last two in particular included RIP
penalties. Typically, a person could claim up to three years
credit in the retirement system and the individual and the
employer each paid a percentage of the full actuarial costs of
those additional three years of credit. The Legislature made a
determination that if a person chose to return to public
employment after taking the RIP, there should be some sort of
penalty. Referring to this as a RIP penalty is his terminology.
The payment is not to make the retirement system whole; rather
it's a penalty that is paid to return to public employment after
having participated in the RIP.
SENATOR GUESS asked if the fiscal note would be zero if this
were open to all teachers instead of just commissioners.
MR. BELL replied it would. HB 20 would do the same for all TRS
members who participated in a RIP and for the same reasons there
would be no actuarial impact on the retirement system.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS thanked Mr. Bell for his complete answers.
There was no further testimony.
SENATOR GUESS observed this is open to all commissioners but
it's geared for the Commissioner of Education because this
Administration is having difficulty finding commissioners. Since
there would be no fiscal impact she was unclear why teachers
weren't included as well since Alaska has a significant teacher
shortage. She noted the previous Commissioner of Education took
significant financial and retirement penalties to become
commissioner and SB 38 would do nothing to rectify that
situation.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS advised HB 20 would allow all teachers to be
hired back without having to pay the 110 percent penalty. Both
bills are quite similar and if SB 140 passes it might give more
credibility to the need to make it available to everyone.
SENATOR LYMAN HOFFMAN asked what kind of message this sends to
other commissioners who retired and participated in a RIP. He
said this person "retired, he RIPed out early, he knew the
consequences."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS said it was reasonable to make the exception
for the single position because the most likely candidates for
the Commissioner of Education job would be current or retired
superintendents.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if the same argument couldn't be made for
someone such as Commissioner of Public Safety William Tandeske.
Making the one exception is unfair to Commissioner Tandeske and
others returning under the same circumstance. He asked, "Why
aren't we opening it up to all commissioners?"
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Bell to comment on whether all
commissioners could take advantage of the waiver.
MR. BELL explained the bill would allow anyone who has
participated in a public employees or teacher retirement
incentive program to return as a commissioner of any state
agency. If a person retired without participating in a state
sponsored RIP and is returning as commissioner, they have the
waiver option available to them. He said, "In some ways you
could argue it's a level playing field."
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked which other currently hired commissioners
would be eligible.
MR. BELL said he doesn't track the retirement status of
commissioners so he wasn't aware of any others that were
currently hired who participated in a state sponsored RIP.
SENATOR GUESS commented there is an immediate effective date
with the amendment so Senator Hoffman's point still stands. She
asked when the RIP took place.
MR. BELL advised there have been several; the last was enacted
in 1996 and he thought it expired in 2000. His staff could give
a complete history of RIPs if she so desired.
SENATOR GUESS said that wasn't necessary. She asked him to
confirm that a commissioner who would have been eligible but was
hired previously could not take advantage of the waiver because
they were already hired.
MR. BELL thought she was correct because of the effective date.
People in place today wouldn't benefit; only those hired after
the bill is enacted would benefit.
SENATOR HOFFMAN commented this isn't a level playing field. It's
just level for those commissioners that are not yet hired.
Previously hired commissioners wouldn't find the playing field
level at all.
MR. BELL explained he doesn't believe there are any
commissioners hired under the current Administration who
participated in a state sponsored retirement incentive program
and therefore haven't been faced with the penalties associated
with the RIP. There may be commissioners who have been hired and
are participating in the waiver option, but he doesn't know that
for sure. This would allow newly hired commissioners who
participated in a state sponsored RIP to participate in the
waiver option that is available to people who didn't participate
in a state sponsored RIP.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced there was an amendment before the
committee and he would like a motion to adopt.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to adopt amendment #1 for HB 140.
SENATOR GUESS objected to ask a question. She asked if changing
the title wouldn't require a concurrent resolution.
SENATOR HOFFMAN replied, "If it gets to the floor you're going
to need one."
SENATOR GUESS asked whether a concurrent resolution was needed
to move the bill from committee. She said she was looking to the
senior member for an answer.
SENATOR COWDERY replied, "I don't believe so."
SENATOR HOFFMAN said a concurrent resolution would be needed
when the bill passed from the Rules Committee.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS agreed.
He asked for objections to amendment #1. There being none,
amendment #1 was adopted.
He asked for further discussion.
SENATOR GUESS said she wouldn't object to moving the bill from
committee, but she implored the Administration and the majority
to consider two points:
· First, she thought this was the appropriate vehicle to take
up HB 20. It's an important bill to take up now
particularly if there is an immediate effective date for
next year's hiring. This would be good for education today.
· Second, the previous Commissioner of Education shouldered
significant financial burden and lost years in retirement
for public service. She asked them to consider making the
bill retroactive to 1994.
There was no further discussion.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for a motion to move the bill from
committee.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to move SCS HB 140(efd fld) (STA)
from committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
SB 115-CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES PROGRAM EXPENSES
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Burnett to introduce SB 115.
MR. JERRY BURNETT, Department of Corrections Director of
Administrative Services, explained the bill allows the
Correctional Industries Fund to pay state employee wages and
benefits for the product managers employed in correctional
industries. Effectively, $960,000 would be paid from product
revenues instead of from the general fund.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked what the current product revenue figure
was.
MR. BURNETT replied the estimate for FY04 is approximately
$4,150,000. If SB 115 passes, they would have to manage the fund
more aggressively in an effort to increase revenues.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked him to elaborate.
MR. BURNETT added they have product managers and correctional
inmates who are employees. Currently they run the Juneau
Commercial Laundry, Fairbanks Garment/Flat goods Shop, Kenai
Office Furniture Systems Plant, Eagle River Garment Shop, Kenai
Metals Plant, Seward Wood Furniture Plant, Palmer Auto Body
Shop, and Juneau Staph Guard Hospital Laundry.
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY asked if the purpose was to shift employee
costs from the general fund.
MR. BURNETT replied the salaries and benefits of all 14 product
managers associated with correctional industries are currently
paid from the general fund. This bill would allow their salaries
and benefits to be paid from correctional industries revenues.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if the salaries and benefits for those
positions would remain the same.
MR. BURNETT replied there is no proposal to change them.
SENATOR GUESS asked for the current revenues and expenditures.
MR. BURNETT advised current revenues for Fy04 are about
$4,150,000 and without any changes, they expect to have a fund
balance of about $300,000 at the end of this fiscal year.
Therefore, they would need to increase revenues to pay the
salaries and benefits.
SENATOR GUESS asked what would be eliminated if those revenues
don't increase.
MR. BURNETT said they would have to "find efficiencies within
the department to cover the costs."
SENATOR GUESS queried whether passing this bill would result in
positions being cut.
MR. BURNETT replied they did not plan to cut any positions as a
result of passing SB 115.
SENATOR GUESS questioned whether the salaries and benefits
discussed could be part of the reduction if the department is
unable to make up the more than $600,000 difference.
MR. BURNETT wasn't able to offer an answer regarding how the
department would handle reductions if they were unable to make
up the revenues.
SENATOR GUESS said she wasn't making herself clear. She wanted
to know if including salaries and benefits would make it an
option to exclude them in a reduction because they wouldn't be
excluded now.
MR. BURNETT replied salaries and benefits are currently paid
from the general fund and a general fund reduction to the
department could result in a cut to those positions.
SENATOR GUESS said she was talking about the Correctional
Industry Fund.
MR. BURNETT advised cutting positions would be one of their
options if the industry fund was unable to generate sufficient
revenues to pay for the salaries and benefits of its employees.
SENATOR GUESS asked, "But it wouldn't be right now if the
Correctional Industries Fund fell short. You couldn't actually
reduce salaries and benefits."
MR. BURNETT replied, "Currently, if correctional industries
revenues were to fall short, it is likely that we would reduce
the number of product managers we have even though it is not a
direct relationship to the general fund. We would because we
wouldn't have sufficient work and sufficient income to justify
those positions."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS commented the task isn't easy but the idea is
the program should pay its way.
MR. BURNETT agreed.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked how they planned to generate the
additional revenue.
MR. BURNETT wasn't in a position to answer. The manager was
going to retire and the department would look for a new manager
with the entrepreneurial skills to actualize the goal.
SENATOR COWDERY asked what the money in the fund is used for
currently.
MR. BURNETT replied it is used to buy supplies and pay for
equipment and pay the salaries of the inmates who work in
correctional industries.
SENATOR COWDERY asked how much inmates are paid per hour.
MR. BURNETT wasn't sure, but thought they were paid in the
neighborhood of fifty cents per hour. Even so, they would need
significant new revenues.
SENATOR DYSON advised he has a continuing interest in
correctional industries. The capacity crisis in the state
prisons makes it very difficult to take advantage of training
and job opportunities. The prison population must become more
stable before meaningful training is possible. He sees no reason
why the auto body shop at Sutton couldn't one day become as
successful as the Nevada prison auto shop where inmates restore
antique and classic automobiles. The men and women trained in
that Nevada shop have few discipline problems and an extremely
low recidivism rate. Those inmates have a trade and typically
one or two job offers when they are released so they are able to
support themselves and their families.
SENATOR COWDERY asked whether Florence, Arizona inmates were
required to get a GED [General Educational Development] before
they could apply for a job while in prison.
SENATOR HOFFMAN recalled inmates were required to work toward a
GED before they could get TV privileges.
SENATOR COWDERY thought the idea was worthwhile.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS acknowledged that Mr. Burnett had his work
cut out for him, but this could provide a good opportunity for
everyone involved.
There was no further testimony.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for a motion to move SB 115.
SENATOR DYSON made a motion to move SB 115 and attached fiscal
note from committee with individual recommendations. There being
no objection, it was so ordered.
SB 24-SPECIAL ABSENTEE BALLOTS
SENATOR GEORGIANNA LINCOLN, prime sponsor, advised Ms. Boario
would introduce the bill and Ms. Breeze was available to answer
questions.
MS. SARA BOARIO, chief of staff to Senator Georgianna Lincoln,
summarized the purpose of SB 24.
SB 24 offers a voter living in a remote location the
opportunity to vote using the 60-day special advance
absentee ballot. In current statute, only voters
living, working or traveling outside of the United
States are eligible for this special ballot. However,
distance, terrain and natural conditions have
prevented voters in remote areas from reaching a
community with a polling place or from receiving by
mail ballots. The current absentee ballot is mailed
out 14 to 15 days in advance.
The Division of Elections supports this bill as they
already distribute the 60-day special advance absentee
ballot and this legislation will not impose any
administrative difficulties. This bill also has a zero
fiscal note.
Last session there were a couple of questions regarding the
interpretation of the words "remote" and "reasonable."
Legislative legal advised them to review how the Division of
Elections applies their current regulations to determine who is
a permanent absentee voter. This should provide information
regarding how the division would apply SB 24 in determining
eligible remote voters. One of the criteria the division uses to
identify permanent absentee voters is if the voter resides in a
remote area in Alaska where distance, terrain, or other natural
conditions deny a voter reasonable access to a voting place.
Because the definition of "remote" is inherent in the
regulations, for SB 24 a remote area is one in which reasonable
access to a polling place is denied by the conditions outlined.
The key phrase is reasonable access; legislative legal found
that courts have interpreted "reasonable" as a matter of degree
dependent upon the specific facts of the case and is usually
determined by the agency. The Division of Elections does review
the specific conditions of all permanent absentee voters and the
voters that would benefit from SB 24 are already identified in
the division's voter registration system.
SENATOR GUESS asked her to confirm that the words "remote" and
"reasonable" are established in regulation and that individuals
would have to apply for the special ballot just as they must
apply for any other absentee ballot.
MS. BOARIO agreed.
SENATOR GUESS then asked whether eligible voters would be
notified that this option is available.
MS. VIRGINIA BREEZE, legislative liaison for the Division of
Elections, affirmed that voters would have to apply for the
special ballot. Because this would be a new option, there would
be a method to inform voters.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Ms. Breeze about the letter dated May
9, 2002 and signed by Election Administrative Supervisor, Gail
Fenumiai where she stated, "The division believes it would be an
unnecessary expense to expand the use of the 60-day special
advance ballot to all Alaskan voters." He was confused because
all other correspondence from the division indicates this would
be a good idea.
MS. BREEZE agreed the letter did cause some confusion, but she
thought the answer lay in the last paragraph. It stated, "The
only way for a permanent absentee voter to vote is by mail. They
do not have access to any other options to exercise their right
to vote. The division feels it is in the best interest of these
voters that they be extended another alternative for voting,
such as is the case with voters in urban Alaska." She
interpreted this to mean the division does not intend to do this
for every voter in the State of Alaska. Just voters living in
remote locations would be eligible.
There were no further questions.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for a motion.
SENATOR GUESS made a motion to move SB 24 from committee with
individual recommendations and zero fiscal note. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
HB 46-PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOTS
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, prime sponsor, explained he became
aware of the need for this legislation while campaigning in
Eagle River. A number of people were concerned with the change
in election laws relating to the primary elections. The concern
stemmed from the requirement that voters had to declare some
political party affiliation to access any of the ballots. HB 46
is carefully crafted to stay clear of any issues surrounding the
initiative process or the overall theory behind the primary
election process. It simply provides that, in addition to party
ballots, a ballot would be available that would present only the
propositions and/or ballot initiatives being voted on in that
primary election. The ballot would be available to any qualified
voter that chose that ballot rather than having to declare any
party affiliation.
The ballot would be a "no party" ballot which is not to be
confused with a non-partisan or undeclared voter designation.
There are voters with certain religious affiliations who have a
proscription against partisan participation, but want to
participate "in the advisory capacity as voters in this state."
He said HB 46 is "a fix to a small area that I believe was
overlooked in last year's election statutes." Certainly, no one
voting favorably on this legislation would prejudice his or her
own opinions on any of the larger issues related to the
initiative and/or primary process in the State of Alaska. HB 46
very simply enfranchises the voters who were disenfranchised in
the last election.
SIDE B
4:20 pm
CHAIR GARY STEVENS recapped HB 46 as legislation that would give
voters who did not want to participate in partisan politics an
opportunity to vote.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER replied that is the full intent of the
bill.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS said, "Anyone regardless of party can
choose the ballot."
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER advised the technical structure of the
bill provides that the Division of Elections shall prepare a
ballot that only offers propositions. AS 15.25.060(b) reads, "A
voter may vote only one primary election ballot." which
encompasses all the available ballots. It then defines political
party ballots.
SENATOR GUESS asked if it would be a no party name ballot or an
initiative only ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER repeated it is a ballot for initiatives
and propositions only. Voters selecting this ballot would not
have the opportunity to vote for people.
SENATOR GUESS recommended he change his description from "no
party" to "proposition only" because so many people associate no
party with non-partisan.
With regard to the fiscal note, she asked if it was his intent
that the cost of this bill would be absorbed into the cost of a
primary election.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER explained he gave considerable attention
to the statute regarding the preparation of a fiscal note before
concluding that this was a zero fiscal note. That particular
statute provides that the fiscal note is to present additional
appropriation that may be necessary to implement the bill. The
Division of Elections enters a budget cycle knowing there is an
election coming, but they never know definitively how many
ballots they will need to print. The division believes that this
bill, in and of itself, would have no impact on their decision
regarding how much to budget for printing costs. Of course there
would be costs associated with printing the ballot, but those
costs could be accommodated within the division's current year
budget and future printing costs would not require them to
accommodate an increment for HB 46.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if there would be six or seven ballot
choices with passage of this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER wasn't sure how many ballots were
authorized, but this would be a ballot in addition to all the
party ballots.
SENATOR HOFFMAN remarked the additional option makes it a bit
more complicated but less controversial.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER agreed; any time an additional decision
must be made it complicates matters a bit, but this would be an
improvement because it would make it possible for more people to
vote. He added the record shows they have strong support from
the American Civil Liberties Union, political parties, and the
Division of Elections.
SENATOR GUESS noted the letter from Randy Ruedrich and remarked
she was unclear whether he was extending his support of HB 46 as
Commissioner on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
or as State Chairman of the Republican Party of Alaska.
There were no further questions asked of Representative Hawker.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Ms. Breeze whether the division was
comfortable accepting the additional responsibility associated
with passage of the legislation.
MS. BREEZE stated the division had no trouble with the six
ballot primary last year and they anticipated no difficulty
adding an additional ballot.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked how many ballots they anticipate this
next year.
MS. BREEZE informed him there are four ballots currently, but it
is unclear what the total would be.
There were no further questions asked of Ms. Breeze.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for a motion to move the bill.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion and asked for unanimous consent to
move CSHB 46 and zero fiscal note from committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS adjourned the meeting at 4:30 pm.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|