04/08/2013 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB56 | |
| HB57 | |
| HB140 | |
| HB54 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 140 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 56 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 8, 2013
1:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Wes Keller, Chair
Representative Bob Lynn, Vice Chair
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Doug Isaacson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 56(JUD)
"An Act relating to certain crimes involving controlled
substances; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 57
"An Act adopting the Alaska Entity Transactions Act; relating to
changing the form of entities, including corporations,
partnerships, limited liability companies, business trusts, and
other organizations; amending Rule 79, Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure, and Rules 602(b)(2), 602(c), and 605.5, Alaska Rules
of Appellate Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 57(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 140
"An Act relating to the information that must be included with
certain notices provided for the proposed adoption, amendment,
or repeal of a regulation."
- MOVED CSHB 140(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 54
"An Act relating to the identification, location, and
notification of specified family members and family friends of a
child who is in state custody."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 56
SHORT TITLE: RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN DRUG OFFENSES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DYSON
02/15/13 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/15/13 (S) JUD, FIN
03/04/13 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/04/13 (S) Heard & Held
03/04/13 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/05/13 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/05/13 (S) Moved CSSB 56(JUD) Out of Committee
03/05/13 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/11/13 (S) JUD CS RPT 3DP SAME TITLE
03/11/13 (S) DP: COGHILL, MCGUIRE, DYSON
03/18/13 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/18/13 (S) Heard & Held
03/18/13 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/27/13 (S) FIN RPT CS(JUD) 3DP 3NR 1AM
03/27/13 (S) DP: KELLY, MEYER, HOFFMAN
03/27/13 (S) NR: FAIRCLOUGH, BISHOP, DUNLEAVY
03/27/13 (S) AM: OLSON
03/27/13 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/27/13 (S) Moved CSSB 56(JUD) Out of Committee
03/27/13 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/04/13 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/04/13 (S) VERSION: CSSB 56(JUD)
04/05/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/05/13 (H) JUD, FIN
04/06/13 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/06/13 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/08/13 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 57
SHORT TITLE: ENTITY TRANSACTIONS ACT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HOLMES, OLSON
01/16/13 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/11/13
01/16/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/13 (H) JUD
03/13/13 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/13/13 (H) Heard & Held
03/13/13 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/18/13 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/18/13 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/06/13 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/06/13 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/08/13 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 140
SHORT TITLE: NOTICE FOR REGULATION ADOPTION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) REINBOLD
02/22/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/13 (H) JUD
03/18/13 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/18/13 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/13 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/25/13 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/25/13 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/27/13 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/27/13 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/29/13 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/29/13 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/08/13 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 54
SHORT TITLE: PLACEMENT OF A CHILD IN NEED OF AID
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GARA, THOMPSON
01/16/13 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/11/13
01/16/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/13 (H) HSS, JUD
01/24/13 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
01/24/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/24/13 (H) HSS, JUD
02/07/13 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/07/13 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/26/13 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/26/13 (H) Heard & Held
02/26/13 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
04/02/13 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/02/13 (H) Moved CSSSHB 54(HSS) Out of Committee
04/02/13 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
04/04/13 (H) HSS RPT CS(HSS) NT 3DP 4NR
04/04/13 (H) DP: TARR, NAGEAK, SEATON
04/04/13 (H) NR: KELLER, PRUITT, REINBOLD, HIGGINS
04/08/13 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
CHUCK KOPP, Staff
Senator Fred Dyson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Senator Dyson, sponsor,
presented CSSB 56(JUD).
RICK ALLEN, Director
Office of Public Advocacy (OPA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of CSSB 56(JUD), answered
questions.
QUINLAN STEINER, Director
Public Defender Agency
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of CSSB 56(JUD), answered
questions.
PEGGY BROWN, Executive Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Encouraged the committee to ensure CSSB
56(JUD) doesn't declassify certain drugs that are predator drug
components.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of CSSB 56(JUD), answered
questions.
JAMES R. WALDO, Staff
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking on behalf of Representative
Holmes, a joint prime sponsor of HB 57, explained the changes in
proposed Version O.
GRANT CALLOW, Attorney
Law Offices of Wm. Grant Callow;
Member, Alaska Delegation of the Uniform Law Commission
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law
(NCCUSL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Characterized HB 57 and amendments to be
valuable to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE LORA REINBOLD
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 140.
KRISTA VONBERGEN, Staff
Representative Lora Reinbold
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented proposed CSHB 140, Version C, on
behalf of the sponsor, Representative Reinbold.
STEVE WEAVER, Assistant Attorney General
Legislation & Regulations Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 140, answered
questions.
ARNOLD LEIBELT, Policy Analyst
Office of the Management & Budget (OMB)
Office of the Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 140, answered
questions.
TOBY SMITH, Staff
Representative Les Gara
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of SSHB 54.
CHRISTY LAWTON, Director
Office of Children's Services (OCS)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of SSHB 54, answered
questions.
JANE PIERSON, Staff
Representative Steve Thompson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As staff to a joint prime sponsor, provided
information on SSHB 54.
AMANDA METIVIER
Facing Foster Care in Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 54.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:12:00 PM
CHAIR WES KELLER called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:12 p.m. Representatives Keller, LeDoux,
Gruenberg, and Foster were present at the call to order.
Representatives Lynn, Millett, and Pruitt arrived as the meeting
was in progress. Representatives Holmes and Isaacson were also
present.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
SB 56-RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN DRUG OFFENSES
1:12:42 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the first order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 56(JUD), "An Act relating to certain
crimes involving controlled substances; and providing for an
effective date."
CHAIR KELLER noted that SB 56 is the companion legislation to
HB 178, which has already been heard in the House Judiciary
Standing Committee. He related his desire to move SB 56.
1:14:18 PM
CHUCK KOPP, Staff, Senator Fred Dyson, Alaska State Legislature,
speaking on behalf of the sponsor of CSSB 56(JUD), informed the
committee that the Department of Law (DOL) had expressed concern
that the five-year look-back period for a person found in
possession of a drug was too short for those with two strikes
prior to a felony charge. Therefore, [the amendment labeled 28-
LS0355\C.6, Strasbaugh, 4/5/13] would lengthen the period to
seven years. He related that the return to seven years complies
with the intent of the sponsor and provides more time for a
defendant to seek treatment and rehabilitation. The amendment
labeled 28-LS0355\C.6, Strasbaugh, 4/5/13, read:
Page 2, line 2:
Delete "five"
Insert "seven"
MR. KOPP then explained that the amendment [labeled 28-
LS0355\C.7, Strasbaugh, 4/5/13] would require screening,
evaluation, and treatment - if necessary - for a defendant
convicted of misconduct involving a controlled substance in the
fifth degree. The sponsor believes the aforementioned would
comport with the intention of CSSB 56(JUD), which is to refer
those with a drug addiction to treatment. The proposed
amendment, he opined, clearly provides direction to the court
that anyone picked up for drug possession, as CSSB 56(JUD)
addresses, will be referred to treatment. Furthermore, if it's
determined after the initial screening that the treatment is
necessary, then treatment will follow. The amendment labeled
28-LS0355\C.7, Strasbaugh, 4/5/13, read:
Page 5, following line 15:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 12.55.135 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(l) A defendant convicted of misconduct involving
a controlled substance in the fifth degree shall be
ordered to satisfy the screening, evaluation,
referral, and program requirements of an alcohol
safety action or drug abuse evaluation program, if an
alcohol safety action or drug abuse evaluation program
is available in the community where the person
resides, or of a private or public treatment facility
approved by the Department of Health and Social
Services under AS 47.37 to make referrals for
rehabilitative treatment or to provide rehabilitative
treatment."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
1:19:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT inquired as to whether these changes
would lower the tolerance for date rape drugs. She stated that
she didn't want to create a situation that would make it easier
to rape women and not be prosecuted when the drugs are in their
possession.
MR. KOPP clarified that CSSB 56(JUD) does not address the date
rape drug, Rohypnol, which is a schedule IV drug. He pointed
out that there are hundreds of drugs that can be used for
nefarious reasons and the number one date rape drug in the world
is alcohol. However, he related that during his 23 years of law
enforcement experience, he saw only alcohol and Rohypnol once
being used to commit [rape].
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT, drawing from experiences her children
related to her regarding Rohypnol use to commit nefarious acts,
maintained concern that the legislation would lower the
standards. With regard to alcohol being the number one date
rape drug, she highlighted that it's someone's choice to drink.
MR. KOPP assured the committee that [even with CSSB 56(JUD)]
when one is charged with sexual assault in the first degree,
whether or not the defendant caught with the first possession of
this drug would be a misdemeanor or not has nothing to do with
the unclassified felony with which the defendant will be
charged. Furthermore, most of the drugs listed in this
legislation have legitimate uses, although they can be misused.
He noted that the public defender and the director of the Office
of Public Advocacy (OPA) could speak more on this issue as they
have dealt with thousands charged with these types of acts.
1:23:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT then inquired as to whether possession
[of the controlled substances listed in CSSB 56(JUD)] by [a
defendant] in a rape case would be considered a mitigating
factor if convicted.
MR. KOPP deferred to the public defender and the director of
OPA.
1:24:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that her concern isn't regarding the
defendant in a rape case rather her concern is regarding a
situation in which someone has the [date rape] drug in their
possession because they are thinking of using it.
MR. KOPP emphasized that there are a number of chemicals that
can be misused for the purpose [of rape], which is why the focus
is only on criminal acts and behaviors.
1:25:24 PM
RICK ALLEN, Director, Office of Public Advocacy (OPA),
Department of Administration (DOA), began by informing the
committee that he can speak from experience as a prosecutor in
Palmer for almost eight years, during which time he prosecuted
hundreds of felony cases, after which he became a public
advocate. With regard to Rohypnol, he told the committee that
although it's illegal in the United States it's still prescribed
in locations in Latin America, such as Mexico, and Europe.
Although it sometimes is found in the U.S., he couldn't recall a
single Rohypnol case that was ever prosecuted in the Matanuska-
Susitna Valley. Furthermore, he couldn't even remember hearing
of any such cases in Alaska. The drug Rohypnol is similar to
valium in that it's an anti-anxiety drug. Rohypnol is a
schedule IV drug. He reiterated earlier testimony that SB 56
and HB 178 don't address schedule IV drugs.
1:27:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT expressed concern with anyone having any
amount of the types of drugs typically used [in nefarious
situations such as rape]. Therefore, he indicated hesitation
moving forward [with the legislation]. He said he's not yet
comfortable with the legislation's proposed changes. Although
he wasn't comfortable with allowing individuals to possess small
amounts of controlled substances as addictive as
methamphetamines and other drugs in the categories in the
legislation, he wasn't "a fan" of such an individual being a
felon for 10 years. Representative Pruitt inquired as to
whether the [legislation] is headed in the appropriate direction
or is it part of a larger discussion that should be held
regarding overall sentencing and existing mechanisms.
1:30:13 PM
MR. KOPP reiterated that this legislation has nothing to do with
date rape drugs. "That is a red herring," he stressed. He
further stressed that nothing in the legislation makes a drug
legal. Furthermore, the legislation doesn't decriminalize
anything. The legislation recognizes that current law doesn't
provide an individual caught for simple drug possession an
opportunity to participate in reform - as is provided for those
convicted with driving under the influence (DUI), misdemeanor
assault, and misdemeanor theft - rather than house them for
$54,000 per year and have the felony label keep the offender on
public assistance for 10 years after release. He highlighted
that domestic violence, alcoholism, and recidivism rates
decrease for those who can obtain a job. Therefore, family
units have a much better chance of staying together. Mr. Kopp
then directed attention to a Pew Center report that relates the
vast majority of the nation, including conservatives, [agree]
with the approach proposed by the legislation. The Pew Center
has authored several prominent studies that have confirmed that
the states experiencing progress that is actual reductions in
recidivism are states that are going in the direction [proposed
by SB 56].
1:35:09 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of
Administration, regarding date rape drugs, related that in the
last 15 years he didn't recall any prosecutions for drugs used
in date rape situations. He offered his understanding that the
core of CSSB 56(JUD) addresses simple possession of recreational
drugs and drug use and places the penalty at a misdemeanor,
which is a significant penalty. For a misdemeanor one faces up
to a year in jail and up to a $10,000 fine. [The changes
embodied in CSSB 56(JUD)] are important because they allow for
the Alcohol Safety Awareness Program (ASAP) screening, which
allows a neutral individual to evaluate whether an individual
has an addiction or has made an error in judgment in terms of
determining what is necessary to divert them. Therefore, the
proposed change in statute allows individuals to take personal
responsibility for their decisions and actions, which could've
been a youthful indiscretion. The change, he opined, will have
a profound impact on juvenile, younger offenders. A felony for
life has a tremendous impact on one's ability to attend college
and obtain work in many different fields, whereas a misdemeanor
will allow the offender to take responsibility and divert their
path. For instance, the vast majority of individuals who
receive a DUI never receive a second DUI, and an even smaller
amount receive a third DUI. Those receiving a third DUI tend to
repeat, which is the point at which the felony conviction,
increased supervision, and penalties is directed. With
recreational drugs, one can assume that a third-time offender is
dealing with a significant problem requiring more supervision.
1:38:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked whether the [public defender's
office] has the ability to select with what an individual is
going to be charged.
MR. STEINER explained that the prosecution is the entity that
determines what charge with which to proceed. If an individual
is in possession of a controlled substance set at a felony
level, the prosecution proceeds on a felony. With regard to
entering into a plea bargain and reducing the charge, it's up to
the state to reduce a charge in exchange for a plea with jail
time and other conditions and the client would have to agree to
it. With plea bargaining in these simple possession cases, one
of the problems is disparity in jurisdictions and prosecutors.
This legislation would level the playing field since individuals
with one or two simple possessions would have the opportunity to
take responsibility and correct their behavior prior to being
supervised under felony probation.
1:41:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN mentioned that he has reservations about
CSSB 56(JUD), although the goals of it are good. He asked
whether the legislation achieves the goal of decreasing prison
populations. He then questioned whether it would be appropriate
to include a 10-year sunset to ensure that the legislation
accomplishes the goals.
MR. KOPP reiterated that other states have implemented [similar
changes]. In fact, the conservative State of Wyoming, after
which Alaska's law is modeled, has a lower violent crime and
property crime rate than Alaska. Furthermore, Alaska's as well
as the nation's current approach [for simple possession of
controlled substances] illustrates that incarceration is not the
way out of the drug problem. He recalled that Alaska's attorney
general, speaking before the Senate Finance Committee, said the
state's laws aren't working that is the current policy and
approach isn't resolving the issues.
1:44:35 PM
PEGGY BROWN, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), expressed concern that
CSSB 56(JUD) would indeed lower the standard for [date rape
drugs]. She related that the National Drug Intelligence Center
(NDIC) reports that in the U.S. gamma-hydroxybutanoic acid (GHB)
has now surpassed Rohypnol as the substance most commonly used
in drug facilitated sexual assault. The NDIC report attributes
the aforementioned to the likelihood that GHB is much more
easily available, cheaper, and leaves the body more quickly.
Ms. Brown highlighted that Alaska is a state that has two and a
half times the national average in child sexual assault. These
are drugs, more appropriately referred to as "predator" drugs,
which can be used in various degrees to incapacitate and
paralyze people. She then requested that the committee closely
review CSSB 56(JUD) in order to ensure that it isn't
declassifying certain drugs that are predator drug components
and maintain that while reducing the costs of prison and
incarcerations. Noting that her brother is a former warden for
a prison in Louisiana, she said she understands the concern [of
the cost of prison and incarceration]. Ms. Brown acknowledged
that she didn't have any answers for the committee, but offered
that a larger discussion, particularly regarding date
rape/predator drugs, [may be necessary].
1:48:39 PM
CHAIR KELLER, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony on CSSB 56(JUD). He then requested that
the committee address the two amendments provided to it.
1:49:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked whether the proposal in this
legislation removes a tool from prosecutors.
1:50:16 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), in response
to questions, echoed earlier testimony that in Anchorage first
offense possession of schedule I or IIA drugs are routinely
reduced to misdemeanors. Therefore, that's definitely a tool.
She then informed the committee that GHB is a schedule IA
controlled substance.
1:51:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether any of the drugs referred to
in CSSB 56(JUD) would be referred to as date rape/predator
drugs.
MS. CARPENETI offered her understanding from Ms. Brown and a
sexual assault nurse that GHB, gamma-valerolactone 4-pentanolide
(GVL), and 1,4 butanediol (BD) are all being used as date rape
drugs. However, the nurse wasn't familiar with gamma
hydroxyvalerate (GHV). She opined that the difficulty with
these date rate drugs is that they leave the body very quickly,
which she attributed to the lack of cases being brought forth.
This legislation would reduce possession of date rape/predator
drugs from a felony to a misdemeanor.
1:52:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT inquired as to the result of removing
schedule IA, which includes the date rape drug, from the
legislation. He then requested an estimation of how many cases
involve [controlled substances] in schedule IA and schedule IIA.
He questioned whether it's appropriate to include some of the
worst controlled substances in schedule IA or [controlled
substances] in a lesser category.
MS. CARPENETI answered that these are policy decisions for the
committee to make. Although the sponsor of the legislation has
great intentions, there may be unintended consequences of a
blanket change that makes possession of schedule IA controlled
substances for the first and second offense a class A
misdemeanor. One of the concerns is with the date rape drug,
which she didn't view as a red herring. In fact, she stated
that the concern with the date rape drug should be considered.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT inquired as to how many cases there have
been [in which a first offense of a class A] felony was [not
prosecuted as a felony].
MS. CARPENETI responded that she didn't know and would have to
determine whether such information is available. She then
related that the information available in this realm is fairly
archaic.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned whether the legislation could
be changed such that it could refer to schedule I controlled
substances except any predator controlled substances without
specifically naming them.
MS. CARPENETI stated that an exception could be included for
this category of controlled substances that are generally
considered to be date rape drugs.
1:56:33 PM
CHAIR KELLER surmised that there is no legal definition of a
date rape drug.
MS. CARPENETI related her belief that's correct, but pointed out
that what are considered to be date rape drugs are specified in
AS 11.71.140(e)(1)-(2)(A)-(D).
1:57:19 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:58:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT related her support for the concept of
CSSB 56(JUD), but maintained concern that the proposed change
includes date rape drugs.
MR. KOPP offered that the legislation could be amended to not
apply to date rape drugs. However, he pointed out that
Rohypnol, the date rape drug, is already a misdemeanor in Alaska
statute. This legislation would maintain Rohypnol as a
misdemeanor for initial possession, but the third offense would
become a felony. He noted that it was news to him that use of
GHB has surpassed Rohypnol as a date rape drug. He also
highlighted the testimony of Alaska's public defender and
director of OPA, who between the two of them have many decades
of prosecution and defense experience and who have not dealt
with a date rape drug case. Therefore, he said it's not an
issue.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT highlighted that since the date rape
drugs are fast acting that might be why there aren't
prosecutions involving those drugs. Though she supported the
legislation, she maintained concern with the impact in relation
to the date rape drugs. She thanked Mr. Kopp for his
willingness to amend CSSB 56(JUD) in regard to date rape drugs.
MR. KOPP characterized such an amendment as a friendly
amendment.
2:02:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the word, "shall" on line
5 of the amendment labeled 28-LS0355\C.7, Strasbaugh, 4/5/13,
should instead be changed to "may" and leave it to the
discretion of the court. Drawing from a situation in another
state in which the [requirement to participate in an alcohol
safety action or drug abuse evaluation program] was abused; he
asked whether there has been any abuse of it in Alaska.
MR. ALLEN related that much of the latest literature and best
practices trend toward ordering rehabilitative treatment for
simple possession regardless of whether it's appropriate in a
given case. He confirmed that sending individuals who aren't
addicts to rehabilitative facilities in which they are
surrounded by addicts can do more damage than good. However,
the way this legislation is drafted and the way it works with
the DUI context is that there is an initial screening process.
He said he is very comfortable with the way the aforementioned
process works in Alaska. For example, in the DUI context an
individual with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.085 who has
never been in trouble before and the facts of the case are clear
that the individual had a couple too many glasses of wine with
dinner and shouldn't have driven, the individual will [be
required] to sit through a video and a course on alcohol safety.
In his view, a similar scenario will be followed in the drug
context. While he shared Representative Gruenberg's concern on
a national level, he opined that the ASAP does a fairly good job
of those evaluations.
2:07:07 PM
MR. STEINER noted his concurrence with much of Mr. Allen's
response. However, he highlighted that independence is one of
the keys to the success of the screening approach. Therefore,
the screeners need to be professionals who aren't associated
with particular programs in order to make an independent
recommendation. In Anchorage, there is a good reputation for
the independent screening process such that the recommendations
are consistent with the facts of the case and the individuals.
He remarked that compulsory language is helpful if there isn't
independence or to ensure against the possibility of abuse.
MS. CARPENETI clarified that the mandatory language, the
"shall", only pertains to evaluations not treatment. Without
the evaluation of those convicted of possession of serious drugs
covered by CSSB 56(JUD), it potentially leaves these individuals
without supervision. Therefore, the mandatory evaluation is
appropriate, she posited.
CHAIR KELLER announced that CSSB 56(JUD) would be set aside in
order to allow the sponsor time to address members' concerns.
HB 57-ENTITY TRANSACTIONS ACT
2:11:14 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 57, "An Act adopting the Alaska Entity
Transactions Act; relating to changing the form of entities,
including corporations, partnerships, limited liability
companies, business trusts, and other organizations; amending
Rule 79, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rules 602(b)(2),
602(c), and 605.5, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee is
proposed committee substitute (CS) labeled 28-LS0255\O,
Kirsch/Bannister, 3/12/13, adopted 3/13/13.]
2:11:54 PM
JAMES R. WALDO, Staff, Representative Lindsey Holmes, Alaska
State Legislature, reminded the committee that HB 57 implements
the Model Entity Transaction Act (META) in Alaska statute, which
means that it provides an avenue for the various corporate
entities within the state to interact with other entities of a
different variety. This ability for various entities to
communicate on a level and uniform playing field will be
advantageous for businesses in the state and will facilitate
commerce. He then directed attention to an amendment labeled
28-LS0255\O.1, Bannister, 4/5/13, which would remove from
Section 30 of CSHB 57, Version O, the repeal of AS 06.260.670
and thus AS 06.26.670 would remain in existing law. This
statute, AS 06.26.670, deals with trust companies. The impetus
for the amendment, he related, was from Dan Branch, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Commercial and Fair Business
Practices Section, Civil Division (Juneau), DOL. Mr. Branch
found that if CSSB 56(JUD) was to repeal AS 06.26.670, it would
limit dissenters' rights within trust companies that engaged in
a conversion. Dissenters' rights are the right of folks with an
interest in a company/entity to have an easy way out if they are
unhappy with a conversion, merger, or form of transaction with
which the company/entity is engaged. Effectively, dissenters'
rights means that folks can be quickly bought out of the
company/entity if it engages in a transaction from which they
want to dissent. He related that leaving AS 06.26.670 in law
will preserve dissenters' rights for trust companies and won't
impair any other mechanism in the legislation.
2:15:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG characterized the aforementioned as a
good amendment that he would offer at the appropriate time. He
then asked whether the legislation includes any other statute
similar to AS 06.26.670.
MR. WALDO directed attention to the proposed new section, the
Alaska Entity Transactions Act, AS 10.55, which would apply to
almost every form of entity in the state. However, page 5, line
26 through page 6, line 7, specifies a number entities that are
excluded from participating in the act. That list of entities
includes financial institutions as defined in Title 6, which
includes trust companies. Therefore, trust companies are exempt
from participating in the new act. Any entities not exempt from
participating in the new act are afforded dissenters' rights,
according to AS 10.55. With regard to the entities that can't
participate in the act, he related his understanding that the
only statute repealed in Section 30 that applies to an excluded
entity is AS 06.26.670; the others are in AS 10.06.1050 or Title
32, which would be partnerships, limited partnerships,
corporations, and limited liability companies (LLC). All of the
aforementioned will be able to participate under the new act,
and thus won't be excluded and will have dissenters' rights
according to the new act. In further response to Representative
Gruenberg, Mr. Waldo confirmed that the sponsor is very
satisfied with the legislation and believes the amendment will
improve it significantly.
CHAIR KELLER, after determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
2:19:48 PM
GRANT CALLOW, Attorney, Law Offices of Wm. Grant Callow; Member,
Alaska Delegation of the Uniform Law Commission, National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law (NCCUSL), in
response to Representative Gruenberg, characterized the
legislation as good and to his understanding the amendments make
sense. Therefore, he opined that the legislation and the
amendments will be of value to Alaska.
2:21:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 28-LS0255\O.1, Bannister, 4/5/13, which read:
Page 1, line 7, through page 2, line 1:
Delete all material.
Page 2, line 2:
Delete "Sec. 2"
Insert "Section 1"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 49, line 16:
Delete "AS 06.26.670;"
Page 49, line 20:
Delete "sec. 11"
Insert "sec. 10"
Page 49, line 24:
Delete "sec. 11"
Insert "sec. 10"
Page 49, line 27:
Delete "sec. 11"
Insert "sec. 10"
Page 49, line 31:
Delete "sec. 11"
Insert "sec. 10"
Page 50, line 13:
Delete "Section 32"
Insert "Section 31"
Page 50, line 14:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 33"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:21:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report CSHB 57, Version 28-
LS0255\O.1, Bannister, 4/5/13, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 57(JUD) was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
2:22:33 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:22 p.m. to 2:24 p.m.
HB 140-NOTICE FOR REGULATION ADOPTION
2:24:14 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 140, "An Act relating to the information that
must be included with certain notices provided for the proposed
adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation."
2:24:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 140, Version 28-LS0478\C, Bannister, 3/26/13, as the
work draft.
CHAIR KELLER objected for discussion purposes.
2:25:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LORA REINBOLD, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as the sponsor of HB 140, began by noting that the legislation
had been changed in response to members' concerns. She then
reminded the committee that the current law specifies that the
agency promulgating a regulation has to specify the impacts of
that regulation on the agency. However, the agency promulgating
the regulation doesn't have to access the impacts to other state
agencies, municipalities, or the private sector. Representative
Reinbold then turned over the presentation of Version C to
staff.
2:27:23 PM
KRISTA VONBERGEN, Staff, Representative Lora Reinbold, Alaska
State Legislature, reviewing Version C, explained that Section 1
is unchanged as is the language on page 1, line 6 through page
2, line 1. However, language in Section 2 has been changed to
include a new notice requirement with which agencies will have
to comply when announcing regulations. The requirement will
require agencies, in a sentence or two, to identify which
regulations in a package are required/mandated by federal law.
She ventured that compliance with the aforementioned requirement
should be easy for the agencies to meet since they already have
to know whether a federal regulation/law requires them to take
action before they even begin drafting the regulation. At the
beginning of the regulatory process, agencies know whether and
which regulations in their packages are required or mandated in
federal law. Section 2 merely requests they share that already
compiled information with Alaskans. Section 2 also adds
language requiring state agencies to include notice to the
public of the good faith estimate of the costs imposed by the
new regulations on private individuals, businesses, state
agencies, and municipalities. Ms. Vonbergen highlighted that
the aforementioned is an important part of the legislation
because existing law only requires state agencies promulgating
regulations to review the impacts and costs to that agency. She
clarified that this review isn't intended to be a detailed
McDowell Group level analysis of the estimated costs of
regulations. Instead, the language simply requires a good faith
effort by the agency to estimate the costs in the aggregate.
Version O, she pointed out, includes a new section, Section 3,
which clarifies that there is no right to sue based on the
agency's duties to prepare an estimate. Therefore, Section 3
clarifies that it's an informational effort for the benefit of
Alaskans and not for the litigation battlefield. Section 4 was
Section 3 in the original legislation and makes it clear that
the notice for requirements in the legislation only apply to
regulations announced after the effective date of the
legislation.
2:31:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the current effective
date is adequate for purposes of the state complying with the
requirements in HB 140.
2:32:50 PM
STEVE WEAVER, Assistant Attorney General, Legislation &
Regulations Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law,
said he isn't in a position to speak to particular state
agencies regarding whether they would be able to get up to speed
on this proposal or not. Although a delayed effective date
certainly might be helpful, it would be partially dependent upon
the information each state agency has on hand.
2:34:10 PM
ARNOLD LEIBELT, Policy Analyst, Office of the Management &
Budget (OMB), Office of the Governor, regarding whether the
effective date of the legislation should be delayed, answered
that it depends upon the type of legislation [from which
regulations would be promulgated], which is why the OMB fiscal
note is indeterminate. He opined that the legislation adds
another level of complexity that is responsibilities for
agencies, particularly those departments that tend to have more
regulations than others. For example, the Board of Game and the
Board of Fisheries receive up to 400 proposals per year, so the
proposal in this legislation would be more difficult to
implement than others. Therefore, it's difficult to speculate.
2:35:32 PM
CHAIR KELLER questioned whether that means OMB isn't concerned
with the potential costs.
MR. LIEBELT replied no, OMB is concerned with the costs. In
fact, the notice requirements for the regulations specify that
agencies and departments must pay particular attention to the
costs of regulations. Currently, state agencies are responsible
for identifying the cost impact of the regulations to the
impacted state agency alone. Through the public hearing process
the cost is revealed from municipalities, industry, and
individuals. That cost information provided during the public
hearing process is taken into consideration when the regulations
are drafted.
2:36:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out the language in Section
2(d)(1) only refers to the federal court as one that might
impose a regulatory requirement. He questioned whether a state
court should also be included in the ambit of the legislation.
The state would know if it was something imposed by the
legislature. However, the state might not know for a period of
time whether a state court might have imposed that. He reminded
the committee that the annual book members receive includes
briefs for which legislative action may be required by a court
decision. He opined that [HB 140] is doing the same thing to
administrative agencies, and thus it may be a number of months
until the annual report is available before the legislature
knows what the Superior Court in Anchorage had done.
Representative Gruenberg suggested that adding state courts to
the legislation may be something to consider.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she would accept such an amendment.
2:39:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that typically a short title
isn't given to legislation that simply amends other legislation.
Therefore, he inquired as to whether the sponsor is wedded to
having the proposed short title for HB 140.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD replied yes as she believes the proposed
short title is important to have.
2:40:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD then offered her understanding that
federal agencies [already have to do what HB 140 proposes]. For
example, the federal agencies have to determine whether proposed
regulations impose an information collection burden. Therefore,
the proposal in HB 140 merely shadows what is already in place
at the federal level. She then highlighted letters of support
for HB 140, including letters from the Wasilla Area Seniors,
Inc., the National Federation of Independent Business - Alaska,
and the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce. Representative
Reinbold emphasized her desire to avoid the "little guy" getting
overwhelmed by the process due to oversight or unintended
consequences. The legislation, she pointed out, includes a no
harm clause as well as an aggregate [of the impacts]. She also
highlighted that the Alaska Municipal League (AML) is very
supportive of HB 140.
2:41:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, as follows:
Page 1, line 12, following "federal"
Insert "or state"
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the legislation should
also apply to state courts.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:43:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report CSHB 140, Version 28-
LS0478\C, Bannister, 3/26/13, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, CSHB 140(JUD) was reported from
the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 54-PLACEMENT OF A CHILD IN NEED OF AID
2:43:56 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the final order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 54, "An Act relating to
the identification, location, and notification of specified
family members and family friends of a child who is in state
custody." [Before the committee was CSSSHB 54(HSS).]
2:44:19 PM
TOBY SMITH, Staff, Representative Les Gara, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of Representative Gara, a joint
prime sponsor, paraphrased from the following sectional analysis
provided in committee members' packets:
Section 1.
This section adds a new section to AS 47.10, requiring
that a supervisor in the Office of Children's Services
(OCS) certify in writing that a search for
noncustodial parents, adult family members, and
appropriate adult family friends of the child has been
conducted. OCS must notify these adults of the child's
removal within 30 days, unless there are extenuating
circumstances. This section codifies existing OCS
policy related to extended family searches, and adds
the requirement of supervisor certification.
Section 2.
This section adds a reference to the new section of
statute established in Section 1. It requires that due
diligence be conducted to locate extended family
members before the child is placed in a foster home.
Section 3.
This section allows the department to provide for
emergency placement of a child while conducting due
diligence.
MR. SMITH summarized that the legislation has no fiscal impact
and would ensure that front-line caseworkers perform all that is
required and can be done for the best interest of foster youth.
He clarified that the legislation doesn't change any standards
but rather ensures that proper policies are being performed by
requiring that a supervisor sign-off when a caseworker has
performed a due diligence search in placement of foster youth.
2:46:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to the difference between
SSHB 54 and CSSSHB 54(HSS).
The committee took an at-ease from 2:50 p.m. to 2:51 p.m.
2:51:32 PM
MR. SMITH reviewed the changes from SSHB 54 to CSSSHB 54(HSS),
as follows:
Page 1, line 2:
Deletes "and family friends"
This change was made at the request of the Office of
Children's Services (OCS). The inclusion of family
friends in AS 47.10.035 created a new requirement that
family friends be notified when a child is removed
from their home. Determining which family friends were
required to be notified of the removal of the child
would be difficult to determine, and would create an
onerous requirement for OCS to comply with. Family
friends will still be considered as potential foster
parents.
Page 1, lines 6:
Deletes "or adult family friend" for the reasons
stated above.
Page 1, line 10:
Deletes "and appropriate adult family friends" for the
reasons state above.
Page 1, line 14:
Changes "certify" to "verify".
This change was made at the request of OCS. OCS feels
that a verification of a family member search can be
done using current documentation methods, while a
certification may have required additional
documentation.
Page 2, lines 1-3:
Deletes "The information provided under this
subsection shall be submitted to the court for
consideration before the next scheduled hearing after
the due diligence period specified in (a) of this
section."
This change was made at the request of OCS. Submitting
this information to the court was a redundant
requirement, as all the information is made available
to all parties as part of the discovery process.
Page 2, following line 19:
Inserts a new section to read: "Sec. 3. AS 47.14.100
is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (u) The
department may provide for emergency placement of a
child while conducting due diligence under AS
47.10.035 and (e) of this section."
This change was made at the request of OCS and the
Department of Law. There was some concern that Sec. 2
(e) of the bill could prohibit OCS from making an
emergency placement for a child the day they are
removed from their home. This change clarifies that a
child may be placed in an emergency or temporary
foster home until a family search has been conducted
and a permanent placement has been approved.
2:54:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked why the term "certify" was
changed to "verify". He also asked whether "verify" is being
used in the technical sense of AS 09.63, which is a verification
that has to be underwrote. The use of "verify" per AS 09.63
seems unnecessarily formalistic, he opined.
2:55:35 PM
CHRISTY LAWTON, Director, Office of Children's Services (OCS),
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), clarified that
there was no intent for the term "verify" to be defined [as
under AS 09.63]. The change was simply a less formal
description of a supervisor consulting with his/her staff and
using that consultation to affirm compliance with policy.
CHAIR KELLER announced that SSHB 54 would be held over so that
the drafter could answer this question.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that another term besides
"verify" be utilized otherwise there will be legal questions.
2:57:21 PM
CHAIR KELLER requested confirmation that the term "noncustodial"
on page 1, line 9, doesn't include those parents whose parental
rights have been terminated.
MS. LAWTON confirmed that would be the case.
CHAIR KELLER inquired as to whether CSSSHB 54(HSS) restricts
OCS's discretion in any way in terms of [notifying a
noncustodial parent of information about the foster child].
MS. LAWTON replied no.
2:58:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to how OCS finds these adult
family friends.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that CSSSHB 54(HSS) doesn't
include the reference to "adult family friends". However,
CSSSHB 54(HSS) does use the term "adult family members" although
it isn't defined.
2:59:20 PM
JANE PIERSON, Staff, Representative Steve Thompson, Alaska State
Legislature, noted that this question arose in the House Health
and Social Services Standing Committee and it was discovered
that these are close family friends that aren't blood relations.
Ms. Pierson surmised that these are situations in which the
family friends would likely come forward and express interest.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised, in terms of the due diligence
aspect, that OCS doesn't have an obligation to search for the
adult family friends of the child. If the family friends come
forward, then they have standing in regard to placement of the
child, she surmised.
MS. PIERSON related that's her understanding as well.
MS. LAWTON clarified that this proposed language wouldn't
require OCS to provide formal notification to adult family
friends, but OCS's policy for a due diligence search means that
the agency identifies as it is able family friends for potential
placement. This identification, she noted, is largely based
upon information from the family and the children. The proposed
new language in [CSSSHB 54(HSS)] doesn't require that OCS
provide official/formal notification, in terms of a specific
timeframe.
3:02:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if this is the latest version of
what was originally referred to as the blood relative statute.
MS. LAWTON said she is unfamiliar with that prior proposed
legislation, and thus is unable to answer that question.
3:03:31 PM
AMANDA METIVIER, Facing Foster Care in Alaska, related support
for SSHB 54, which creates accountability on behalf of OCS staff
to ensure compliance to perform relative searches early. The
state spends millions to house children in foster care with
strangers who are licensed caregivers. She opined that the best
thing is to search for family members first, place them with
family, and keep children out of the system and into timely
permanence with their families. In response to Representative
Gruenberg's question, Ms. Metivier said she didn't believe this
legislation is a result of the blood relative law, but she
wasn't sure.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG informed the committee that the blood
relative statute was enacted in the 1970s as a result of
requests from Bush legislators. At one time, children were
taken from village homes rather than keeping them in the village
while the litigation occurred.
CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony on SSHB 54.
3:06:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, recalling a situation with which he
was involved, questioned whether SSHB 54 should include language
that prevents the noncustodial parent whose rights aren't
terminated from having custody/contact in certain dangerous
situations.
3:08:53 PM
MS. LAWTON clarified that SSHB 54 addresses initial
contact/notification within the first 30 days that the child or
relative [of a noncustodial parents] has come into care and that
they have a potential legal right to ask for placement.
Regardless of the circumstances, in terms of past bad acts, OCS
would still be required to notify the noncustodial parent if
their rights had not been terminated before. However, OCS isn't
required to make placements, which is something that if in
dispute would be addressed in the court. The OCS is required to
provide notification and [the noncustodial parent] is allowed to
have rights in terms of hearing and potential representation
from the public defender's office. Ms. Lawton specified that
OCS has discretion with regard to appropriateness of placement.
3:10:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX emphasized her belief that [a noncustodial
parent] who has committed horrendous bad acts should have
his/her [parental] rights terminated. If [the noncustodial
parent's] rights aren't terminated, then it's simply an
allegation of bad acts.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG maintained that the legislation should
include language allowing OCS to seek permission from the court
in an extraordinary circumstance not to notify the rapist.
[CSSSHB 54(HSS) was held over.]
3:11:47 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:11 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB 34 ver. O Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 34 |
| CSHB 34 ver. O Sectional.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 34 |
| CSHB 34 Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 34 |
| CSHB 34 ver. O.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 34 |
| CSSSHB 54 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 54 |
| CSSSHB 54 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 54 |
| CSSSHB 54 (HSS) Summary of Changes SSHB 54 to CSHB 54 version R.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 54 |
| CSSSHB 54 (HSS) Ver. I.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 54 |
| SSHB 54 Version P.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 54 |
| HB 54 Version N.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 54 |
| HB 54 Fiscal Note-HSS.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 54 |
| CSSSHB 54 Supporting Document-OCS Frontline Turnover Rate.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 54 |
| CSSSHB 54 Letter of Support-Presbyterian Hospitality House.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 54 |
| CSSSHB 54 Letter of Support-Jennifer Payton.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 54 |
| HB 57 Proposed Amendment O.1.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| 2- SB 56 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/18/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 56 |
| 4- CSSB 56(JUD) Section Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/18/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 56 |
| 6 SB56 - Summary of Changes.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/18/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 56 |
| CSSB 56 (JUD) Amendment C.7.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 56 |
| CSSB 56 (JUD) Amendment C.6.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 56 |
| SB 56 Supporting Document-FBKS Newsminer Article.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 56 |
| SB 56 Letter of Support-Mike Moore.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 56 |
| SB 56 Letter of Support-ACLU.pdf |
HJUD 4/3/2013 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 56 |
| HB 140 Letter of Support-AK Chamber of Commerce.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 140 |
| CSHB 57 Proposed Amendment O.1.pdf |
HJUD 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |