Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
03/20/2013 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB133 | |
| HB93 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 93-CHARTER SCHOOLS
9:02:55 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 93, "An Act relating to the authorization,
monitoring, and operation of charter schools." [Before the
committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 93,
Version 28-LS0354\O, Mischel, 3/11/13, adopted as the working
document on 3/15/13.]
9:03:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 93, labeled 28-LS0354\P, Mischel,
3/18/13, as the working document.
9:04:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion.
9:04:30 AM
ERICK CORDERO-GIORGANA, Staff, Representative Lynn Gattis,
Alaska State Legislature, explained that the changes to the
proposed CS, Version P, page 2, line 14, removed non-profits and
government agencies as authorizers and only allows accredited
postsecondary institutions in the state. He directed attention
to page 4, line 24, and reported that Department of Education
and Early Development (EED) had been removed after testimony
that EED was not eligible to receive any of the funds.
9:06:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked to clarify that the proposed CS,
Version P, did not allow certain authorizers, such as unions and
Native Corporations.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA replied that Version P only considered
post-secondary accredited institutions to be authorizers, and
removed the potential for non-profits and other entities.
9:07:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER pointed out that this change had been
made at his request, stating his belief that educational
institutions "by their very nature, they have some institutional
expertise and administrative capabilities necessary to perform
the responsibilities envisioned for them under this
legislation." He noted that these institutions also had
financial resources. He opined that an expansion of these
approved authorizers for charter schools would be a good first
step toward certification for other authorizers.
9:08:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if it was necessary for an approved
post-secondary educational institution to be in the State of
Alaska.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA directed attention to page 2, line 19, and
said that the institution was required to be in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what institutions would be included.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA said that he did not have a complete list.
9:09:20 AM
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA, in response to Representative Drummond,
noted that this language had been changed in Version P to only
include an accredited post-secondary institution.
9:10:15 AM
CHAIR GATTIS, speaking as the sponsor of the proposed bill, said
that the original version had allowed multiple authorizers, but
that Representative Saddler had concern with non-educational
authorizers. She stated that she "had no problem with just
moving it to educational institutions within the State of
Alaska" as presented in Version P.
9:10:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the intent to allow the
University of Alaska (UA) system to be an authorizer would
include all the campuses, as well as the skill center in Seward.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA explained that the proposed bill only
approved a process by EED to determine an authorizer, while the
details would still need to be finalized.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the definition for an
authorizer was being placed in statute, and offered his opinion
that it was necessary for an accredited institution to be
recognized.
9:12:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked if there was pressure on the
charter school system from non-school district organizations to
create additional facilities.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA explained that there were more than 2,000
Alaskan students on waiting lists for Alaska charter schools,
which he determined to be a "tremendous demand." He explained
that charter schools, as public schools, had a duty for an
equitable enrollment process. He reported that there would be
advertisements in the community during enrollment periods for
applications. He clarified that parents had to re-apply for the
waiting list each school year.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND emphasized that a waiting list did not
confirm a request by a community for a new school. She declared
that many Anchorage optional and alternative educational
programs also had waiting lists. She questioned the need for
additional charter schools.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA replied that community members had made
requests for new charter schools, but had met resistance by the
local school districts as the current authorizers. He noted
that currently there was not an appeal process. He offered his
belief that there "was a natural inclination and a natural
conflict of interest by local school districts, and hesitation,
to allow for new charter schools."
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND questioned whether additional schools
would further the supervisorial responsibility for EED.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA expressed his agreement that the proposed
bill would increase the role of EED in determining the
authorizer's capability to approve, monitor, renew, or terminate
a charter. He noted that the actual operation of the school was
handled by the Academic Policy Committee (APC) at each school.
He said that the charter schools would maintain the current
autonomy for budget, schedule, calendar, and program.
9:16:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked to clarify that, under the
proposed bill, the Alaska State Board of Education and Early
Development would be the ultimate arbiter.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA said that the Alaska State Board of
Education and Early Development still had to ratify a local
charter school application. He reported that the proposed bill
created an appeal process, page 2, lines 8-12.
9:18:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered her belief that the limitation
for an authorizer in Version P "guts this whole bill." She
suggested a change to allow Native organizations the opportunity
to organize charter schools, with certain parameters, as "they
know how their kids learn, they could really do something with
this." She declared, "I don't like charter schools," and
offered her belief that charter schools were not the means for
upgrading the public schools.
9:20:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, in response, said that UA was most likely
one of the only entities to qualify as an authorizer, and asked
if there is a UA representative present to testify regarding its
position on Version P.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA replied that there had not been a response
from UA.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the Blaine Amendment would be
violated if there was an authorizer other than a public
institution.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA explained that the funds to educate the
students would go directly to the charter school, as a public
school.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if there had been a legal opinion
for this possibility.
9:23:02 AM
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA replied that the drafter of the proposed
bill had stated that the Blaine Amendment would not be violated
as there was no direct benefit to the private groups, as this
would be a public charter school. He noted that this was
similar to the performance scholarship program.
9:23:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER expressed that he liked the educational
choice offered by charter schools. He opined that, nationally,
universities were the most common authorizers for charter
schools, as they had an educational mission. He pointed out
that the proposed bill did not mandate or create new charter
schools, but merely "opens another vector for possibility." He
stated that a wait list was evidence of a desire for new charter
schools. He stated his support for Version P, and expressed his
appreciation that it was an opportunity, not a mandate.
9:26:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated her support for the original
bill, Version U, which was not restricted solely to the
University of Alaska as an authorizer. She reported that there
were long waiting lists for charter schools in her community,
and that many parents were frustrated. She declared that she
was a supporter for freedom of choice as "one size does not fit
all." She said that charter schools "have more skin in the
game, typically they have to pay a lot of their own facility
costs." She opined that charter schools had increased
graduation rates and higher test scores, in many incidences.
She declared that she did not support a monopoly by the state as
authorizers.
9:27:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that the Anchorage School District
received an administrative fee from the charter schools' base
student allocation, and pointed out that there were
administrative fees to the authorizers, as well.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA concurred and directed attention to Version
P, page 4, line 20. He said that these fees varied with each
local school district, and that there was a cap to these fees.
He opined that the authorizer would be allowed to receive these
fees, as well.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND expressed her confusion, and asked for
clarification that the administrative costs were to be paid to
the authorizer of the school. She requested a list of
accredited post-secondary institutions in Alaska.
9:30:01 AM
SUSAN MCCAULEY, Director, Teaching and Learning Support,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), explained
that the indirect rate, or administrative cost, applied to the
local school district or the alternate authorizer permitted by
the proposed bill, and that it varied by district. She declared
that it was established by the school district and approved by
EED as a means to determine the permissible costs charged to a
charter school in association with the administration of federal
grants.
9:31:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to Version P, page 2,
lines 24-31, and asked if the intention was that authorizers be
required to review applications from any charter school in the
state, and it this encourage an appeal to the State Board of
Education because of locale. He noted that these authorized
charter schools would not have to fulfill the requirements to
public schools for the same union agreements, the same
textbooks, or any of the other exemptions listed in the proposed
bill.
9:34:18 AM
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA explained that charter schools currently
had these exemptions, except for labor agreements, and were not
granted any other exemptions beyond those in current statute.
He said that the intent was not to force new authorizers to
accept every application, but to maintain the current standard
statewide application process. He said that the local process
by an authorizer could change, similar to that of a local school
district. He pointed out that a local school district could add
to the standard, and require additional conditions.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his belief that a charter school
was authorized by the local school board for that local area.
He pointed out that the proposed authorizer was statewide, with
no constraint for local area. He opined that the use of
"shall," page 2, line 24, was not workable.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA said that the intent of the proposed bill
was not to force an authorizer to accept every application,
although there would be an appeal process.
9:37:23 AM
MS. MCCAULEY pointed to Version P, page 2, line 28, which
permitted an authorizer to deny an application. She offered her
belief that the proposed appeal process would require the
authorizer to provide reasons for the denial, although a process
had not yet been established for appeal to the Alaska State
Board of Education and Early Development.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER suggested that the appeal process was
described on page 2, line 9.
MS. MCCAULEY, in response, said that she was referring to page
2, line 28, in response to Representative Seaton.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER opined that the appeal was a two stage
process, and that an authorizer was obliged to receive and
consider an application, but was not obligated to grant them.
He suggested that it would be beneficial to give authorization
for the appeal process to the Alaska State Board of Education
and Early Development.
9:40:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether authorization shopping might
occur until an application was approved.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA replied that it could be technically
possible, but that the two tier process for approval would
require proof that it was a viable project with the EED before
ratification.
9:42:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that there was no evidence that
local school districts were denying charter school applications.
He asked for recent evidence that local school districts were
inappropriately denying the ability to form charter schools.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA replied that although they had heard from
parents, hard figures for denials were not available as people
were afraid to testify for fear of retribution. He said that
multiple authorizers were determined to be a best practice by
the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, as it forced
the approval process to be a serious process so that
applications were considered on their merit, and not conflict.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed his desire to get to the crux of
the problem. He stated that there was not any evidence, beyond
rumor, that the local school districts were inappropriately
denying charter school applications. He opined that the
proposed bill was merely solving a problem that only existed
through hearsay. He asked for more evidence of these denials.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA said that, while serving on the school
board, he had heard administrators state on the record that they
did not want new charter schools. He said there was not any
data because there was not an appeals process.
9:46:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND referred to a list of charter school
enrollment capacity and wait list data, which indicated that
over 2,000 students were wait listed for attendance. She then
referred to the listed Anchorage schools, which did not show any
wait list. She expressed her agreement with Representative
Seaton that there did not appear to be any pressing need for
more charter schools in Alaska. She said that the public
records for these school board meetings would reflect whether
statements of denial had been made. She asked to have further
information that would include the number of seats in charter
schools and whether charter school applications were being
denied. She requested more data, "not rumor and innuendo and
people pretending that they can't form charter schools."
9:48:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked to clarify that, currently, there
was not an appeal procedure. She asked if there was any
definite criterion for denial of a charter school application.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA replied that there was not an appeal
process at this time, and added that the application by the
Thunderbird Charter School in Matanuska-Susitna had been denied
by the local administration, and not even brought to the Alaska
State Board of Education and Early Development. He offered an
anecdote about a similar denial for a French immersion charter
school in Fairbanks. He said that the minutes might not reflect
this denial; however, stating that, without an appeals process,
it was difficult to find this data.
MS. MCCAULEY explained that the discretion for approval was at
the local level. In response to Representative Ledoux, she
reported that there were criteria for the information required
in a charter school application, which would document the
educational mission, the plans for facilities, the service to
special education students, and the intended programs. She
noted that the application would be forwarded to the Alaska
State Board of Education and Early Development for final
approval.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked to clarify that all of the criteria
needed to be met before the local school board would qualify the
application, and then forward it to the Alaska State Board of
Education and Early Development. She questioned that the local
school board could reject an application without record for any
reason the application was not accepted.
MS. MCCAULEY repeated that the local school board had the
discretion for approval or denial, and there would likely be a
public record the stated reasons for approval or denial.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered her belief that it would be
difficult to obtain any data for denial without an appeal
process, and she suggested the need for public disclosure of
reasons for denial which could be appealed.
9:53:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER considered that this "was a vector not a
mandate." He noted that, as the original impetus for charter
schools came from parents, the appeal of denied applications
would also come from parents. He opined that charter schools
required the same parental involvement and commitment which had
been declared to be "key to student success." He suggested that
a need for charter schools would allow parents to go to an
authorizer, and to have an appeals process. He summarized: "if
there's no need, no desire; no harm, no foul."
9:54:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD pointed out that the student population
for the Anchorage School District had remained at about 49,000
students, even though the city population had significantly
increased in the last 20 years. She said that many students
were now attending private schools, charter schools, and home
schools. She said that the graduation rate in the Anchorage
schools was about 70 percent compared to a statewide graduation
rate of 60 percent. She opined that it was necessary to
"harness local energy, and provide these opportunities, so we
can maintain some control." She offered her belief that charter
schools had "more skin in the game than anyone else that I know
beside home schoolers." She declared charter schools to be cost
effective, and often with better outcomes. She stated that
testimony on the proposed bill indicated that Alaska had "some
of the worst laws in the nation. That was an objective outside,
their unwilling to invest here in our state because of our laws,
are bad, we need to change this law." She declared that Alaska
had "issues with our public education." She opined that it was
necessary for immediate educational reform, "and anybody who's
willing to help create a charter school and have skin in the
game, I think we need to capitalize on that energy right now."
She expressed her support for the Alaska State Board of
Education and Early Development to review these applications.
She declared her desire for multiple authorizers. She
summarized: "we need to empower the locals and the people
who're passionate about education, and get this bill outta
committee, original version."
9:56:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reflected on the testimony that there was
not any data because there was not an appeals process. He
suggested that an appeals process would be appropriate for
collecting information regarding local school board decision
making. Instead of a new regulatory process for authorizers, it
would be much more effective and economical for an appeals
process. He explained that the regulatory process would require
"an entire panoply of regulations that are gonna have to take
place, because now there's a new relationship that's going to
exist." He stated that this would include contractual
requirements for record keeping, and an entire regulatory
framework. He affirmed that a mandate for an appeals process
requiring public disclosure from the reasons of approval or
denial would resolve the dilemma for any inappropriate denial of
charter school applications. He emphasized that creation of a
new regulatory system was not necessary to ensure that
reasonable and appropriate charter school applications were
approved.
9:59:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND expressed her agreement. She confirmed
that it was best to amend the existing charter school laws to
provide an appeal process. She suggested that discussion with
the local school districts could reveal the reasons for any
application denials.
10:00:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON maintained her objection to adopt the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 93, labeled 28-
LS0354\P, Mischel, 3/18/13, as the working document.
10:00:41 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Saddler, Seaton,
and Drummond voted in favor of adopting the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 93, labeled 28-LS0354\P, Mischel,
3/18/13, as the working document. Representatives LeDoux,
Reinbold, P. Wilson, and Gattis voted against it. Therefore,
Version P failed to be adopted as the working document by a vote
of 3-4. [The proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 93,
labeled 28-LS0354\O, Mischel, 3/11/13, adopted as the working
document on 3/15/13, was before the committee.]
10:04:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded the committee that information on
denials by school boards had been requested for discussion on
Version O.
10:05:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND requested additional data for charter
school authorizers and a complete list of charter schools, the
capacities, and the actual wait lists for the past year, as
requested earlier in the meeting.
10:06:15 AM
CHAIR GATTIS declared that HB 93 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB 133 Bill Text.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 02 HB 133 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 03 HB 133 Sectional Summary.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 04 HB 133 ADMs and Full Values.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 05 HB 133 Kasayulie v. Alaska Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 06 HB 133 DEED FY14 School Construction Grant Fund List.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 07 HB 133 PowerPoint.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 08 HB 133 Fiscal Note - EED-FundTransfer-3-13-13.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 00 CSHB 93 v. P.PDF |
HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 01 HB 93 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 02 HB 93 v. A - Bill Text.PDF |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 03 CSHB 93 v. O.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 04 HB93 Changes from HB93 to CSHB93 v. O.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 05 HB 93 FAQ.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 06 HB 93 Fiscal Note - EED-TLS-3-6-13.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 07 HB 93 Sectional Summary v. A.PDF |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 08 HB 93 Backup Charter Schools Basic Information EED.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 09 HB 93 Research CERP Primer Multiple Authorizers 12-11.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 10 HB 93 Research ECS - What Policymakers Need to Know about Charter Schools.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 11 HB 93 Research Legislative Research Services.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 12 HB 93 Research Material - AYP Data for Charter Schools.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 13 HB 93 Letter Support NAPCS 3-13-13.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 14 HB 93 Letter Oppose NEA.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 15 HB 93 Letter Oppose Eagleton.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 16 HB 93 Letter Oppose ESSA.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 17 HB 93 Letter Oppose NAACP.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 18 HB 93 Letters Oppose.PDF |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 19 HB93 Letter Support - Covey.PDF |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 01 HB 151 Sponsor Statement v. A.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 02 HB 151 v. A Bill Text.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 03 HB 151 Sectional v. A.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 04 HB 151 Fiscal Note v. A - EED-TLS-3-8-13.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 05 CS HB 151 ver. O.PDF |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 06 HB 151 Information Packet.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 07 CSHB 151 Fiscal Note - EED-TLS-3-14-13.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |