Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/19/2021 01:30 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Attorney General, Department of Law | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 62 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 19, 2021
1:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Liz Snyder, Vice Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative David Eastman
Representative Christopher Kurka
Representative Sarah Vance
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Attorney General, Department of Law
Treg Taylor - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 57
"An Act relating to the budget reserve fund established under
art. IX, sec. 17(d), Constitution of the State of Alaska;
relating to money available for appropriation for purposes of
applying art. IX, sec. 17, Constitution of the State of Alaska;
and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 3
"An Act relating to the definition of 'disaster.'"
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
HOUSE BILL NO. 29
"An Act relating to liability of an electric utility for contact
between vegetation and the utility's facilities; and relating to
vegetation management plans."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
HOUSE BILL NO. 62
"An Act relating to solemnization of marriage."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
SHELDON FISHER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of
the confirmation of Mr. Treg Taylor, appointee for attorney
general.
PHYLLIS RHODES
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of
the confirmation of Mr. Treg Taylor, appointee for attorney
general.
MIKE GERAGHTY
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of
the confirmation of Mr. Treg Taylor, appointee for attorney
general.
SHELLY CORDOVA, Senior Vice President/General Counsel
ASRC Energy Services
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of
the confirmation of Mr. Treg Taylor, appointee for attorney
general.
TREG TAYLOR, Appointee
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the appointee for attorney
general.
BARRY JACKSON
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: During the confirmation hearing for Mr.
Treg Taylor, appointee for attorney general, testified regarding
an investigative report conducted by Mr. Taylor.
DAVID CARTER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Mr. Treg Taylor, appointee for attorney general.
VERI DI SUVERO
Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AKPIRG)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Mr. Treg Taylor, appointee for attorney general.
ANDREE MCLEOD, Good Government Director
Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AKPIRG)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Mr. Treg Taylor, appointee for attorney general.
THERESA OBERMEYER, PhD
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Mr. Treg Taylor, appointee for attorney general.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:31:00 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:31 p.m. Representatives Drummond, Snyder,
and Claman were present at the call to order. Representatives
Eastman, Kurka, and Vance arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
^Attorney General, Department of Law
Attorney General, Department of Law
1:31:41 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the only order of business would be
the confirmation hearing for Treg Taylor, the governor's
appointee for attorney general, Department of Law. He reminded
members that this is the committee's second confirmation hearing
for Mr. Taylor.
1:32:41 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened invited testimony.
1:33:16 PM
SHELDON FISHER provided invited testimony in support of Treg
Taylor, appointee for attorney general, Department of Law. He
stated he has known Mr. Taylor for many years, including when
they served together at McKinley Capital [Management], and they
are personal friends. Over these years, he said, he has found
Mr. Taylor to be honest, motivated by principle in his dealings,
hardworking, intelligent, and thoughtful. He offered his
appreciation for the committee taking Mr. Taylor's confirmation
seriously and reiterated his support for Mr. Taylor.
1:34:46 PM
PHYLLIS RHODES provided invited testimony in support of Treg
Taylor, appointee for attorney general, Department of Law. She
said her working career was with the federal courts in Alaska,
and her retirement career has been aimed at equality for all.
She related that her personal knowledge of Mr. Taylor is from
working closely with him over a two-year period in a diverse
group of individuals seeking to devise what statewide
nondiscrimination legislation would look like that could be
supported across party lines. She specified that Mr. Taylor was
fully involved in the endeavor, truly believed in equality for
everyone, was attentive, actively participated in compromise,
and presented innovative solutions to be considered in the
group's discussions. She said legislators will find Mr. Taylor
receptive to ideas, easy to work with, and dedicated to finding
workable compromise where needed to further a better Alaska for
all citizens.
1:36:40 PM
MIKE GERAGHTY provided invited testimony in support of Treg
Taylor, appointee for attorney general, Department of Law. He
stated he has been an active attorney in Alaska for almost 43
years and served as attorney general under Governor Parnell from
2012-2014. He related that he hired Mr. Taylor out of law
school in 2004 and Mr. Taylor worked as an associate with the
firm for about five years. He said he worked closely with Mr.
Taylor on several matters of litigation including trials, and
Mr. Taylor was a hard worker, a very good attorney, and a valued
member of the firm. He said he was pleased for Mr. Taylor when
the governor announced his appointment. Mr. Geraghty added that
he has known Mr. Taylor as an honest and ethical attorney with
strength of character and would never question Mr. Taylor's
desire and commitment to do the right thing and to seek the
input and guidance he needs to determine the right thing. He
pointed out that as the attorney general Mr. Taylor has the
resources of the Department of Law to help him with those
decisions and Mr. Taylor would not hesitate to draw on that
knowledge to assist him in the discharge of those duties. He
stated that the attacks on Mr. Taylor's character in previous
testimony were unwarranted and malicious, and he endorses Mr.
Taylor's appointment without any qualifications.
1:39:24 PM
SHELLY CORDOVA, Senior Vice President, General Counsel, ASRC
Energy Services, provided invited testimony in support of Treg
Taylor, appointee for attorney general, Department of Law. She
related that she was general counsel and Mr. Taylor's manager
when he worked as senior corporate counsel at her company. She
said she is testifying on behalf of herself and ASRC Energy
Services to state that Mr. Taylor's integrity, legal acumen,
work ethic, and other strong qualities make him the right person
to be Alaska's attorney general. Regarding integrity, she said
Mr. Taylor is the kind of person who does the right thing
because it is the right thing to do, and his commitment to
honesty, transparency, and accountability would serve Alaska
well. She specified that Mr. Taylor's legal experience across a
broad range of fields makes him well qualified, and that this
experience includes employment, environmental, investigation,
litigation, and matters worth many hundreds of millions of
dollars. She added that Mr. Taylor's work ethic is exemplary,
and Alaskans can count on him to work hard advancing their
interests. For these reasons, she said, she and ASRC Energy
Services wholeheartedly support Mr. Taylor's confirmation. As
well, she continued, Mr. Taylor is kind, strongly committed to
his family, authentically cares about others, helps others on a
person-by-person basis, and takes on volunteer projects to help
his community, all of which show that he is fundamentally a good
person. She stated that Mr. Taylor will be able to fix Alaska's
problems, both big and small, and will do so with integrity.
1:42:28 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN invited committee members to ask questions of Mr.
Taylor.
1:42:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND related that in 2018 House Bill 119 was
passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor.
She said House Bill 119 contained a provision that stated:
"Section 4, AS 42.40.350(a) is amended to read: (a) the
corporation shall receive from the United States and in its own
name take title to all rail property transferred under 45 USC
1201-1214, the Alaska Railroad 14 Transfer Act of 1982, except
that the corporation does not have authority over any right,
title, or interest in property transferred under this subsection
that was not vested in the United States at the time of
transfer." She explained that this provision was intended to
instruct the railroad to stop charging private property owners
along the railroad for using their own land. In October 2020 it
was reported that the railroad was suing the Flying Crown
Homeowners Association to obtain such payments in direct
violation of this new law put in place by House Bill 119. She
asked Mr. Taylor whether he has any knowledge of this situation.
1:45:06 PM
TREG TAYLOR, Appointee, Attorney General, Department of Law
(DOL), confirmed he has knowledge of the bill and the issues.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND inquired whether Mr. Taylor believes
that the state-owned Alaska Railroad Corporation can flout
legislative instructions.
MR. TAYLOR responded he is in an awkward position to answer the
question because he has recused himself from that issue within
the Department of Law (DOL) due to a conflict of interest. He
explained that in an abundance of caution he has removed himself
from this question because his personal residence abuts railroad
property in south Anchorage. He said he has very strong
personal feelings about that issue but hesitates to provide
those here and give them the clout of the attorney general when
he has a clear conflict of interest on the issue.
1:46:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether as the attorney general
sworn to uphold state law, Mr. Taylor will take action on this
issue or assign someone in DOL to take that action.
CHAIR CLAMAN answered on behalf of the appointee. He explained
that if Mr. Taylor has recused himself, he cannot have anything
to do with it. Responding further to Representative Drummond,
Chair Claman said Mr. Taylor could answer questions but because
Mr. Taylor has recused himself, he has no involvement in the
decision. He asked Mr. Taylor to correct him if he is wrong.
MR. TAYLOR confirmed Chair Claman is correct. He said it is out
of his hands whether someone within his section takes that up or
whether someone within the Civil Division takes up that issue,
as he doesn't have the ability to encourage that or to even talk
about that with those individuals. He informed Representative
Drummond that she can submit the questions to the Department of
Law and the administrative assistant will ensure the questions
get to the appropriate person to address her concerns.
1:47:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER addressed the topic of restrictions on
employment after leaving state service and the use of waivers.
She said this ethics rule is in place to protect the interests
of the public and ensure unfair advantages aren't afforded to
one business over another when someone leaves public service.
She added that those safeguards are in place to strengthen and
promote the faith and confidence that Alaskans have in their
public officers. With respect to former chief of staff Ben
Stevens, she noted that Mr. Taylor previously shared with the
committee that he didn't think a waiver was necessary based on
some verbal and undocumented conversations, that in his new job
as vice president of external affairs and transportation at
ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. Mr. Stevens wouldn't be advising on
matters under consideration by the governor's office and in
which Mr. Stevens had participated, in particular matters having
to do with the oil industry. She requested Mr. Taylor to help
the committee better understand how this job position entered by
Mr. Stevens did not require a waiver.
MR. TAYLOR replied that his understanding of Mr. Stevens' job
description is general, and that it was the ethics counsel at
DOL who got into the details. He said his understanding is that
Mr. Stevens is participating in a wide variety of things,
including Conoco's tanker fleet, working with stakeholders in
various areas in which ConocoPhillips has projects or potential
projects, and overseeing ConocoPhillips' paid lobbyists.
1:50:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER noted that ConocoPhillips spokeswoman
Natalie Lowman specifically mentions in a 2/24/[21] article that
the job responsibilities of Mr. Stevens will include government
relations. She recounted that Mr. Taylor's view in his last
conversation with the committee was that it's the responsibility
of Mr. Stevens to self-report should his duties create an
ethical conflict. She requested Mr. Taylor to provide more
detail on what that self-reporting would look like in terms of
timing and what the requirements would be if Mr. Stevens'
responsibilities were to change.
MR. TAYLOR responded that at the last hearing he indicated there
would be times that he expects to hear a request for a public
interest waiver from Mr. Stevens. He said he guesses that
occasions will arise where, in an abundance of caution or
because of personal and substantial involvement in a matter Mr.
Stevens is dealing with on the Conoco side that he had as chief
of staff (COS), that DOL is going to receive specific waivers to
specific job duties that Mr. Stevens has. Mr. Taylor stated
that the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act ("Ethics Act") is
designed for self-reporting. Given many people leave state
service, he said, one can imagine the fiscal note that would be
attached to putting an investigator on each of those persons to
monitor their daily activities. Training is provided to those
individuals on their duties under the Ethics Act, he advised, so
he expects that Mr. Stevens would request a waiver if asked to
do something in the course of his job duties that he feels would
require a waiver or questions whether a waiver is required.
MR. TAYLOR further noted that Mr. Stevens has access to DOL
ethics attorneys for the next two years and has already
developed a relationship with those individuals. He explained
that if Mr. Stevens asks for a waiver, then the governor and he
[as the attorney general] would discuss the aspect of that
waiver and whether Mr. Stevens had personal and substantial
involvement at the COS level and then whether granting of a
waiver would be in the public's best interest. If those
criteria are met, he continued, the waiver would be granted and
would become public; if he and the governor didn't grant the
waiver, that would be the end and Mr. Stevens would be precluded
from working on that specific task. He specified that any
violations of the Ethics Act are an entirely different matter.
He explained that if an ethics complaint were to be seen in a
year a so that Mr. Stevens has violated that two-year
prohibition on doing something in which he had personal and
substantial involvement while he was COS, then the Ethics Act
would kick into place and the repercussions outlined in the Act
would occur after an investigation.
1:54:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER recalled that at the last hearing this
approach was noted as somewhat unprecedented and represents a
departure from how these things have been approached in the past
for these types of positions.
MR. TAYLOR stated he is not aware of what has been done in the
past, he is simply going on his reading of the Ethics Act and
the information he has received from DOL ethics attorneys. He
said the question is whether a blanket waiver on Mr. Stevens'
activities is in the best interest of the state. He stated he
feels a blanket waiver is not in the best interest of the public
and therefore a tact has been taken of looking at a case-by-case
basis and making those decisions based upon the specific facts
of that case, and then making that determination of what is in
the public's best interest.
1:55:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated for the record that the first
testifier was too humble because Mr. Fisher was a member of the
Walker Administration's cabinet. He maintained that as a former
appointee who went through this same confirmation process, Mr.
Fisher's testimony is even more relevant.
1:55:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA noted that the attorney general often gives
advice on the separation of powers between the different
branches of government. He related that in the Federalist
Papers, No. 78, Hamilton talks about the Judiciary Branch as
being the weakest branch of government because it depends on the
Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch to enforce its
judgements. He asked whether Mr. Taylor agrees with that
assessment that the Judicial Branch must depend on the other two
branches of government to confirm its actions.
MR. TAYLOR answered he is a staunch believer in the separation
of powers. He recalled he spoke to that in the prior hearing
when he said there is inherent tension between the three
branches, and that the inherent tension is what produces good
law and the best results for the public served by the branches.
He stated that the very makeup for the Judicial Branch's lack of
enforcement mechanism - a court order - depends on outside the
court branch to enforce, whether that's law enforcement or when
the court strikes down a statute. So, he continued, the
Judicial Branch does have to rely on the other branches to
respect the decisions that the Judicial Branch has made.
1:58:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER thanked Mr. Taylor for mentioning at his
first confirmation hearing that sexual violence and harassment
is a priority to address in Alaska's communities and should not
be tolerated in Alaska's governmental institutions. She brought
up the topic of former Attorney General Kevin Clarkson sending
558 harassing texts to a subordinate over 27 days and requested
Mr. Taylor's perspective on moving forward and lessons learned
from this issue. She recalled Mr. Taylor's statement that Mr.
Clarkson was an honorable man and that the right thing was done.
She asked whether the committee should interpret this statement
to mean that the one month of unpaid administrative leave was
enough recourse for Mr. Clarkson's actions or whether, as the
attorney general [designee] Mr. Taylor's opinion would be that a
different course should have been taken.
MR. TAYLOR qualified he must be careful how he comments given
this is a personnel issue. He stated he does not think the one-
month suspension in and of itself was adequate and doesn't think
it was ever intended to be the final say. He said he believes
that it was the opportunity for Mr. Clarkson's boss to review
what had gone on, review the findings of the human resources
investigation, and make a final decision about the status of Mr.
Clarkson's employment. This second part, he pointed out, was
preempted from taking place because ultimately Mr. Clarkson
resigned as attorney general. Given the nature of the texts and
given it was a subordinate, although a subordinate within
another department of the Executive Branch, not the Department
of Law, he said it was the right conclusion for Mr. Clarkson to
step down and, if not, the right conclusion to probably
terminate his employment.
2:00:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER surmised there might have been some
shortcomings in the vetting process in that specific appointment
decision. She asked Mr. Taylor what could be done to prevent
situations like this from occurring again in the future.
MR. TAYLOR replied he has many ideas on that subject, and he has
shared some of them with the governor's office. He explained
that a sort of investigation takes place, and he hopes there is
some element where residents of Alaska know they can submit
comments to the chief executive about their observations. Not
speaking specifically to this appointment, he said there have
been times when this ability would have prevented some of this
and would have aided the state and the executive in making
decisions.
2:02:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said some people are of the opinion that
the oath taken by legislators or attorney general is symbolic
and that deference should be given to what the courts say is the
constitution rather than viewing their own oath as a relation
directly to the constitution. He requested Mr. Taylor's
thoughts in this regard.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that this discussion has occurred in prior
attorney general nominations, and that as a member of Alaska Bar
Association ("Bar") Mr. Taylor is required to follow the court's
decisions on the interpretation of the constitution. Chair
Claman said he is therefore ruling that question out of order.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether Chair Claman is suggesting
he direct that question to Mr. Taylor in private. He said his
vote is dependent on Mr. Taylor's views on these matters as "the
constitution and our oath is very important."
CHAIR CLAMAN responded that as a member of this body and citizen
of this state and this country, Representative Eastman is
entitled to ask on a personal level or direct from his office to
the attorney general nominee any question that he wants but not
during this committee. He said that when asking about areas
which Mr. Taylor's oath as a member of the Bar would prohibit
him from answering, he thinks Mr. Taylor is not going to answer
in this committee. He inquired whether Representative Eastman
has other questions.
2:04:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that the Alaska Supreme Court
decision on Valley Hospital Association Inc. v. Mat-Su Coalition
for Choice hit close to home in his area. He said that in this
decision the court held that "we are under a duty to develop
additional constitutional rights and privileges under our Alaska
constitution." He asked whether that is how Mr. Taylor sees the
role of the courts.
MR. TAYLOR answered that as cases come to the Alaska Supreme
Court, oftentimes the constitutional rights of individuals of
this state, constitutional rights of citizens of the United
States, are brought to light; so, issues come up that there's a
constitutional question about. He said he doesn't think it is
the court's duty to invent new constitutional rights, but he
does believe it is the court's duty to sort of define what those
constitutional rights are in questions that are of first
impression; so, they are taking the old constitutional rights
and applying them to current situations. He stated he doesn't
think constitutional rights change over time, but that blanks
are being filled in where there are matters of first impression.
2:06:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that numerous cases started before
Mr. Taylor's tenure began, one being Alaska Legislative Council
v. Dunleavy. He noted that as a party to that case, the
legislature might like the attorney general to takes its side in
that opinion. He inquired whether Mr. Taylor, as the attorney
general, has an obligation to maintain the position advocated by
the administration prior to his tenure. In response to Chair
Claman, he confirmed that this case involves appointments.
MR. TAYLOR replied he doesn't want to comment and second guess
his predecessors, but stated he will look at cases afresh,
including prior decisions that attorneys general have given, and
look at the application of law. He specified he will weigh in
on those if he thinks there has been an error in the advice that
was given. He said he doesn't think that once an attorney
general gives an opinion that that is law. There should be a
willingness to take a new look at these things and engage in
discussions on these issues, he continued, especially in this
case with Legislative Legal. Mr. Taylor added that he is a
believer in talking through things, communicating sides, and
working to solutions rather than to head to the courts. The
courts ultimately play a role in that if both parties can't come
to a position in which they agree, he advised, then it is the
natural duty of the courts to decide those issues between the
Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch.
2:09:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said it has come to her attention that Mr.
Taylor issued an opinion on Alaska's Open Meetings Act. She
related that some of her constituents have concerns about AIDEA
[Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority] and others
that are consistently going into executive session, thereby
cutting out much of the public process. She requested Mr.
Taylor's thoughts.
MR. TAYLOR responded he believes the Open Meetings Act should be
followed. He said the transparency that the legislature
intended with that Act is an important aspect of government and
gives the public confidence in their government. There are
exceptions within that Act that allow these executive sessions,
he advised, and whether those executive sessions are being
abused would be a case-by-case look and investigation into that
matter. He offered his hope that that is not being abused, but
said if that is the case, they are in violation of the Open
Meetings Act.
2:10:41 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated it is troubling to hear complaints from his
constituents that executive sessions start five minutes after
AIDEA begins a meeting and sometimes the public must sit on the
phone for as long as three hours before the meeting is finally
reopened. He said that while he understands the need to go into
executive session, it is frustrating that AIDEA cannot manage
its agenda to give meaningful opportunity for public input. He
urged that Mr. Taylor's office try to direct AIDEA that way when
giving counsel.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she concurs as her constituents have
expressed the very same frustration. She said AIDEA has met in
executive session more than what it has offered to the public
and therefore AIDEA is not offering the transparency. She asked
whether Mr. Taylor has compared the open meeting acts of other
states with Alaska's and how Alaska could improve.
MR. TAYLOR answered that he has not yet had the opportunity but
is sympathetic to the concerns expressed by both Chair Claman
and Representative Vance.
2:12:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said he understands the administration became aware
of complaints about Mr. Clarkson's behavior in these texts in
May or early June [2020]. He asked when the administrative
leave occurred.
MR. TAYLOR replied he became aware of the general nature of the
allegations against Mr. Clarkson at the time Mr. Clarkson was
asked to take administrative leave, but he said he couldn't
recall when that exactly occurred and would have to look at the
record.
CHAIR CLAMAN inquired whether Mr. Clarkson told Mr. Taylor as
the deputy attorney general or whether Mr. Taylor heard that Mr.
Clarkson went on administrative leave but didn't know the
reasons [for that leave].
MR. TAYLOR responded that it involved a personal conversation as
Mr. Clarkson left the office. He said Mr. Clarkson had a very
brief conversation with several people of the leadership team
that he was taking some time off and did not provide an
explanation at that time. It was soon thereafter, he continued,
that the team became aware of the general nature of the
complaint against Mr. Clarkson.
2:13:51 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN recalled that during his first confirmation hearing
in response to questions from Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, Mr.
Taylor stated that he knew Mr. Clarkson to be an honorable man.
He inquired whether Mr. Taylor thinks Mr. Clarkson was being an
honorable man when he sent the first of those text messages to
the employee of the Executive Branch.
MR. TAYLOR answered that he in no way condones what took place
with those text messages and it was wrong. He said action
should have been taken and was taken that ultimately led to Mr.
Clarkson resigning. That was the right result, he added, and he
would never condone action of that nature in any circumstance.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that Mr. Taylor did not answer the specific
question of whether Mr. Clarkson was being an honorable man when
he sent that first text.
MR. TAYLOR replied he isn't sure whether that first text would.
He said he hasn't gone through all the texts Mr. Clarkson sent,
but it was not an honorable exchange that took place. Good
people make mistakes, he stated, and he believes in redemptive
quality. It was not honorable that Mr. Clarkson sent those
texts, he continued, but he doesn't think those texts define Mr.
Clarkson as a person. He related that he thought highly of Mr.
Clarkson when he worked with him, the texts were a revelation
and something he has to consider. He said he thinks the texts
were wrong, should not have been sent, and should have been
acted upon, and they were acted upon.
2:16:08 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether Mr. Taylor thinks Mr. Clarkson has
been held accountable for his conduct in sending the 558 texts.
MR. TAYLOR responded that Mr. Clarkson lost his employment with
the state, which was the appropriate action for the state to
take and the appropriate result. Some soul searching by Mr.
Clarkson probably needs to take place, he added. He said
another possibility is a civil action from the employee against
Mr. Clarkson for those texts, but he has no knowledge of that.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that a civil action would be a decision
by the employee, not anyone else.
MR. TAYLOR answered correct.
2:17:12 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN recalled that when asked about the losing string of
cases [during his first confirmation hearing], Mr. Taylor's
response included a comment that the governor doesn't make those
decisions, the attorney general decides those in the public
interest. Chair Claman noted that one case currently pending on
appeal involves the Alaska State Employees Association regarding
union affiliation and a certain interpretation of the "Janus
case" that led to an injunction from the superior court and a
ruling against the state. He said he doesn't see that as an
attorney general's decision and rather a governor's decision to
take that executive action, but it's upon the advice of the
attorney general to take that action. He asked how Mr. Taylor
views the attorney general's role in a case where it is not just
the attorney general making a decision, but the governor wanting
to do something and getting advice from the attorney general's
office which in that case was contrary to a statute in prior
decisions of the supreme court.
MR. TAYLOR replied Chair Claman is almost answering the question
for himself. He said his role, to the best of his ability, is
to provide the best advice on how the governor should act; his
role isn't to sugarcoat any of the realities of the potential
decision or the outcomes of any of those decisions. He noted
that there is no statutory requirement for the governor, who is
elected by the people, to listen to the attorney general, who
isn't elected by the people. Once the governor acts, he
continued, then the attorney general has a decision to make if
it results in litigation. The part played by the attorney
general in that process, he said, is to both give advice and
then defend state action if it's in the public interest.
2:19:42 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that in this particular case the decision
to proceed to appeal and appeal the trial court's ruling was
made by the attorney general at that point and no longer the
governor making that decision.
MR. TAYLOR responded correct. He said the governor is a client
and like any client [the attorney] consults with the client, but
ultimately the attorney relationship is unlike a client in that
the attorney general ultimately has say on whether a case
proceeds, whether a case is appealed, and whether a case is
instigated. He specified that when [the state] gets sued [the
attorney general] has a statutory duty to defend the state, a
role given to [the attorney general] by the legislature.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that when an attorney recognizes a case is
weak and the odds of prevailing very low there are options for
resolving that case sooner than later and not necessarily going
all the way to final judgement, not necessarily choosing to
appeal. He asked where the point is that the attorney general
can exercise independent judgement and say, "Governor, you may
want to but we're just not going to do that, it's not in the
state's interest to appeal this anymore or proceed any further
because we're just going to lose."
MR. TAYLOR concurred there is a point where that conversation is
had with the governor, then the attorney general acts, and then
the governor is free to act based upon that action. He
reiterated that it's up to the attorney general to bring
litigation that's in the state interest, pursue litigation
that's in the public's interest. If [an attorney general] makes
a decision that is contrary to what the governor would like
done, then the governor can act with the governor's authority if
he or she so chooses.
2:21:40 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised the governor's authority would be to fire
the attorney general because, if the attorney general is not
willing to file the appeal, the governor must find somebody else
to do it.
MR. TAYLOR confirmed that that's one of the options available to
the governor.
CHAIR CLAMAN cited the abortion funding veto as an example in
which the trial court ruled against the state and the Department
of Law did not appeal that ruling. He surmised that was a
decision made by the Department of Law independent of the
governor saying the state should not appeal this case.
MR. TAYLOR answered that due to attorney-client privilege he
can't get into what was in those conversations. He explained
that in a case like that the attorney general listens to the
client about what the client wants done, whether the client is a
department or the governor, and then the attorney general
advises the governor as to what the attorney general thinks is
the right course of action and the reasons why, and then the
decision on appeal is a decision for the attorney general.
2:22:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted the governor recently withdrew Executive
Order (EO) 119, which would have [reorganized] the Department of
Health and Social Services. He recounted that before the
withdrawal there were legislative hearings and meetings between
the attorney general and Legislative Legal Services on the EO.
He inquired whether Mr. Taylor recognized that if EO 119 wasn't
withdrawn a lawsuit would likely have been quickly filed.
MR. TAYLOR agreed that [a lawsuit filed against the state] would
likely have happened and said that would not have been in the
state's best interest. The Department of Law, he explained,
looked with fresh eyes at the concerns brought up by Legislative
Legal Services and made a determination. He said DOL's
recommendation to withdraw the EO and to work with Legislative
Legal Services to address those concerns was in the best
interest of the state. He related he is hopeful a compromise
can be reached on this issue, and something put forward that is
going to withstand legal scrutiny and be a positive for the
residents of Alaska.
2:24:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN complimented Mr. Taylor for his focus on criminal
cases. He shared that in his conversations with other lawyers
there has been discussion that lawyers appointed to the Alaska
attorney general's office are always civil experts, not criminal
experts, yet this huge job is the criminal side. He asked
whether Mr. Taylor has any criminal law experience other than
his time serving as attorney general.
MR. TAYLOR replied he has no criminal law experience. He said
that historically an appointed attorney general usually comes
from the civil side, while an elected attorney general usually
rises through the prosecution or defense ranks and becomes the
attorney general of the state. He said his focus regarding the
Criminal Division is to learn that side so he can be hands-on
and able to help prioritize the division's concerns so it can
become stronger and more effective in its prosecutions.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether in his prior practice Mr. Taylor had
any appellate matters before the Alaska Supreme Court in which
he was the lead counsel.
MR. TAYLOR responded no.
CHAIR CLAMAN inquired whether Mr. Taylor has tried any civil
jury trials.
MR. TAYLOR pointed out that in today's testimony Mike Geraghty
testified that the two of them did some trials together. Mr.
Taylor said he was co-counsel on those trials. In further
response to Chair Claman, Mr. Taylor confirmed that Mr. Geraghty
was the lead counsel in those trials.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether Mr. Taylor has been actively involved
in any oil and gas tax matters.
MR. TAYLOR replied he has not in his prior capacity had any
involvement in specific oil and tax issues.
2:26:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE recounted that in the previous confirmation
hearing she asked how, given the breadth of the work required of
an attorney general, Mr. Taylor comes to prioritize cases that
the state should pursue. She inquired whether Mr. Taylor has
been able to reflect upon that question and how he plans to make
that prioritization.
MR. TAYLOR responded that it's a tough question given the
diversity of the legal issues taken on by DOL. He related that
DOL has nearly 300 attorneys, all of whom are experts in one or
another area of law and who work hard on behalf of the public.
It's almost impossible for an attorney general to come in who
has experience in all those diverse issues, he stated, so he is
all ears when DOL attorneys have issues come up. As far as
prioritization, he said he has certain things that he has a
statutory obligation to take on and that is defense. Any time
the state is sued, he explained, DOL engages in that litigation
to defend the state whether it is a statute passed by the
legislature or a decision made by a department. Regarding the
state's defense, he said he would order those in priority of
being constitutional issues, statehood defense issues making
sure the state receives the things promised at statehood and
that there is not encroachment on those issues, and third is the
resource development aspect because that is the lifeblood of
this state.
2:29:36 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that statistics show the Department of
Corrections population overrepresents minorities, particularly
Alaska Natives. He noted that Mr. Taylor talked in his opening
statement about his youth connection on Indian reservations and
concern for people in minority communities. He requested Mr.
Taylor's thoughts as attorney general on steps that could be
taken to make it so that this overrepresentation of Alaska
Natives is no longer seen in a few years.
MR. TAYLOR said that is a big issue on which he has not fully
developed an opinion. He said as he learns more about these
issues and why Alaska has an overrepresentation within some of
those minority groups it is obviously going to be a multifaceted
problem. He stated he is willing to address those issues as he
becomes more aware and will take them on to make sure there
isn't any bias in Alaska's system in the way cases are
prosecuted and that it is based on the law and not the color of
skin. He added that in making these comments he has zero reason
to believe that the state's prosecutors are engaging in that,
but he is willing to look at that issue.
2:31:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated he will ask Mr. Taylor more
questions after the hearing is over [given Mr. Taylor's time
constraint]. He offered his congratulations to Mr. Taylor for
stepping forward.
2:32:26 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on the confirmation of Mr.
Treg Taylor, appointee for attorney general.
2:33:01 PM
BARRY JACKSON testified he is a retired state employee who
worked for 30 years in procurement and all aspects of state
purchasing. He said his concerns about Mr. Taylor's potential
service as the attorney general have to do with Mr. Taylor's
investigative report on the Alaska Industrial Development and
Export Authority (AIDEA) and the Clark Penney contract, which
was done to ascertain how procurement came about, the contractor
selection process, and whether AIDEA complied with the
procurement process. He related that the report was just one
paragraph basically saying that AIDEA had all the necessary
papers in place in its files. He said the report ignored that
the procurement began with the Department of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development (DCCED) through Mr. Penney's
drafting of the contract, and that once the contract had been
largely negotiated it was offloaded to AIDEA which then did a
sole source contract procurement. He asserted that DCCED knew
it would never get this contract through the process of sole
source procurement. He charged that the amount of this
investigation was astoundingly bad and seems to indicate an
intent to cover up what really happened.
2:36:50 PM
DAVID CARTER testified he is a retired lawyer who practiced in
Anchorage from 1984-2013. He stressed that the attorney general
position is a very important position for which there are many
qualified people in the state. But, he continued, Mr. Taylor is
not one of them given how he approached the matter of Ben
Stevens receiving money from VECO [while a state senator]. He
maintained that the ethics policy of ConocoPhillips is that it
doesn't tolerate ethics. He asserted there are no penalties of
any consequence and no criminal penalties for violations. He
charged that there is too much money involved, and too many
revolving doors and incestuous relationships. He said Mr.
Taylor is not the proper person to be Alaska's attorney general
and urged members to not support Mr. Taylor's confirmation.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE clarified for the record that while it may
be a public concern, Mr. Stevens was not found guilty for any of
his actions with VECO.
CHAIR CLAMAN offered his understanding that Mr. Stevens was not
even charged.
2:40:00 PM
VERI DI SUVERO, Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AKPIRG),
testified in opposition to the confirmation of Mr. Taylor. Mx.
Di Suvero said AKPIRG is a statewide nonpartisan nonprofit
organization advocating on behalf of consumers and the public
interest. They referenced a statement by Mr. Taylor regarding
not judging people on their worst days and related that when a
white supremist recently killed six Asian American women a law
enforcement official said the supremist was having a bad day.
This rhetoric, they argued, is used to absolve and forgive
predators, murderers, and white supremists in positions of power
while women, communities of color, and other marginalized
communities are left to bear burdens of violence without ever
seeing accountability. They related that when former Attorney
General Clarkson resigned, AKPIRG sent a letter alongside others
requesting Governor Dunleavy to commit to combatting the sexual
assault crisis in Alaska by assuring that the next attorney
general be a woman and/or a person of color and not a sexual
predator. Instead, the governor appointed another predator, Mr.
Sniffin, who also resigned due to sexual improprieties with a
high school student.
MX. DI SUVERO recalled Mr. Taylor's statement about Mr. Clarkson
being an honorable man and said Mr. Taylor does not seem to
understand that those behaviors share the same fate as the
current sexual violence crisis that Alaska faces and that Mr.
Taylor purports to address as attorney general, the top legal
office for the state. They added that Mr. Taylor's doublespeak
continues into the realm of public trust in government. Through
a recent information request for within the Department of Law,
they continued, AKPIRG learned that Mr. Taylor actively colluded
to circumvent ethics statutes that would lead to written waiver
mandates for certain conflicts of interest. They asserted that
this was confirmed during Mr. Taylor's first confirmation
hearing when he stated that only certain circumstanced would
require a conflict waiver, circumstances of which have already
been satisfied by Ben Stevens' job description of government
affairs. They said Mr. Taylor seems to have directed Mr.
Stevens to ask for forgiveness instead. They stated that AKPIRG
believes Mr. Taylor is unfit to serve the public's interest.
2:43:20 PM
ANDREE MCLEOD, Good Government Director, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AKPIRG), testified that Mr. Taylor's statements
during his first confirmation hearing left no doubt that he
ought not to be confirmed as Alaska's attorney general. She
said Mr. Taylor promises the sun, moon, and stars, but his
actions related to the jump of Ben Stevens from the governor's
office to ConocoPhillips reveal that either Mr. Taylor doesn't
understand the state's laws, or he does understand them and has
purposely, willfully, and intentionally chosen to ignore and
disregard them. She noted that she has submitted to the
committee a copy of all written waivers filed since 2005 per the
Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. She said it shows that many
former public officials did take to heart their oath to do right
by the public they served, did follow Alaska's laws regarding
written waivers, and that they knew appearances of conflicts of
interest existed and took them seriously. Oftentimes corruption
is thought of as money changing hands, she stated. But, she
charged, during his first hearing Mr. Taylor misconstrued laws
put on the books to protect the public interest and prevent and
mitigate conflicts of interest, which is corruption. She stated
that after the 2006 FBI raids of legislative offices,
legislators took great pains to right the wrongs that occurred
because of the actions of corrupt public officials. She said
corruption can be changed if each committee member takes the
necessary action to not confirm Mr. Taylor.
2:45:37 PM
THERESA OBERMEYER, PhD, testified that she cannot support Mr.
Taylor. She cited Mr. Taylor's statement that good people do
bad things and asked, "Where are any limits?" She noted that
the Alaska Bar Association is an integrated bar, so anyone who
is a member must pay Bar dues. She said the Bar has not
disciplined Mr. Clarkson, Mr. Sniffin, or Mr. Berkowitz; they
have kept their licenses to do whatever they please. She
pointed out that only 2 of 24 attorneys general have finished a
term, the two being Avrum Gross and Bruce Botelho. She argued
it is not a sensible system to leave it up to the individual to
be ethical. She questioned whether Mr. Taylor will do anything
to Ben Stevens and noted that nothing happened to Mr. Clarkson
for several months until the press published a story.
2:48:21 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
else wished to testify.
2:49:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE thanked Mr. Taylor for stepping up to serve
and stated it isn't easy to serve after people who haven't acted
honorably. She said it doesn't matter who is next after such
concerning actions and allegations, this person has a hard line
to toe. She recounted that Mr. Taylor has stated he intends to
pursue a different avenue and different course of action in his
office and will be prioritizing sexual misconduct and sexual
assault in Alaska. She related that she has met with Mr. Taylor
and asked him what his priorities are, how he is going to do
things different. She said the sense she has from Mr. Taylor,
and from looking at how he has served and his personal life, is
that Alaska can expect a better environment from this attorney
general in the future. She said it is up to the people involved
in those previous actions to pursue that on behalf of themselves
and the public, it's not up to this attorney general to do that.
She offered her belief that this committee wants to respect that
everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
2:51:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN thanked the day's testifiers and Mr.
Taylor. He recalled that during the hearing there was some
criticism levied at the Executive Branch regarding executive
sessions and the public being locked out of the process for
hours at a time. While that criticism may be well founded, he
continued, just today a constituent told him about waiting for
an hour locked out of the House floor session and was then
confused about why it ended with 100 percent executive session.
So, he stated, everyone has work to do in this area.
2:51:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER offered her appreciation for the themes
that Mr. Taylor addressed regarding what he would like his focus
areas to be. She stated she would have appreciated a bit more
detail and some of the specific ways in which he would address
those issues both statewide and within government offices. She
expressed her hope that through continued conversations the
committee will continue to receive additional detail. She said
it is straightforward to say, "Yes these are important themes,"
but it is also clear that these things continue to persist
because they are difficult to address, and it is going to take
persistence, research, and detailed focus approaches.
2:52:59 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN thanked the testifiers and Mr. Taylor.
2:53:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND expressed her appreciation to the public
and colleagues of Mr. Taylor who testified. She said it is a
tough decision on whether to accept the attorney general and she
still isn't there on how she is going to vote on Mr. Taylor in
joint session. She stated she was inspired by the train of
thought of some of the suggestions and questions, one example
being Chair Claman's reference to the percentage of incarcerated
Alaska Natives. She offered her belief that there are other
paths to reduce that, but they don't have to do with the law or
the attorney general's office; rather it has to do with looking
across departmentally at things like adverse childhood
experiences and how to stop them from happening to Alaska
citizens. She said she will call Mr. Taylor to have this
conversation with him. She added that she likes the direction
Mr. Taylor appears to be wanting to take the department.
2:55:50 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated it is always interesting when Dr. Obermeyer
testifies because she often brings information the committee
might not have thought about. For example, he continued, her
reference to how few attorneys general have served an entire
governor's term, whether a single- or two-term governor, and
Alaska has only had two governors who served two terms. It
raises significant questions, he said, and regardless of whether
confirmed Mr. Taylor will not serve the entirety of a term
because it is already more than halfway through [this governor's
term]. He offered his appreciation to Mr. Taylor for his time
[before the committee].
2:56:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved to advance the confirmation of Treg
Taylor, appointee for attorney general, Department of Law, to
the joint session for consideration. She reminded the committee
that signing the reports regarding appointments to boards and
commissions does not reflect intent by any individual member to
approve or disapprove confirmation of the appointee during any
further sessions. [The nomination is merely forwarded to the
full legislature for confirmation or rejection.]
2:57:34 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:58 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Attorney General Appointment - Treg Taylor Resume 3.15.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/15/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM |
Attorney General Appointment - Treg Taylor |
| Attorney General Appointment - Testimony - Received as of 3.22.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HB 57 v. B 2.18.2021.PDF |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Sponsor Statement 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Sectional Analysis v. B 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - OMB Letter 7.12.2019.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - CBR Sweep Breakdown by Fund - LFD March 2020 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - AEA Memo on PCE Sweep 8.24.2019.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - Hickel v. Cowper May 27, 1994 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - Legislative Finance Outline of AS 37.10.420 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - Legislative Research Memo GF Definitions 9.1.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - FY19 Single Audit - Finding No. 2019-089 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - FY20 CAFR General Fund Accounts 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Statement of Zero Fiscal Impact 3.6.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 PowerPoint Presentation 3.10.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |