Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120
04/14/2015 01:00 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 | |
| SB5 | |
| HB126 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 126 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 126-CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE; APPEALS
1:44:46 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 126, "An Act relating to the administration of
military justice; relating to the adoption of a code of military
justice by the adjutant general; relating to the authority of
the adjutant general; relating to appeals of convictions and
sentences of courts-martial; establishing the Military Appeals
Commission; relating to the detention and incarceration of
members of the militia; relating to the jurisdiction of the
court of appeals; relating to involuntary commitment for
evaluation or treatment of a mental disease or defect before
court-martial proceedings; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was CSHB 126, labeled 29-LS0473\E.]
1:45:00 PM
THOMAS BROWN, Staff, Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska
State Legislature, said he will give a brief overview of HB 126,
offer a sectional analysis, and Lieutenant Forrest Dunbar will
then provide an overview. Mr. Brown explained that HB 126 is
legislation crafted at the request of Alaska's military command
requesting greater authority and latitude in pursuing and
prosecuting service members who violated military rules and
protocols. This version of the bill is a synthesis of a
separate bill presented by Representative Chris Tuck, HB 121,
which sought the same ends as HB 126, but came at the result
from a different means. This bill seeks to grant authority to
the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA) and allow
the creation of regulations to govern themselves.
Representative Tuck's bill, HB 121, sought the same but chose
statute as opposed to regulation.
MR. BROWN advised the sectional analysis lays out the result of
that synthesis.
1:47:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG advised he received pages 44-54, HB
121, Representative Tuck's bill, and asked where the language
originated.
1:47:51 PM
LIEUTENANT FOREST DUNBAR, First Lieutenant, Judge Advocate
Officer, Alaska Army National Guard, advised Representative
Gruenberg that he sent pages 44-45 to him after their meeting,
and that the language came from the Model State Code [of
Military Justice] created by the National Guard Bureau.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Lieutenant Dunbar whether he will
identify what portion of the bill is from the Model State Code
of Military Justice, and what is not.
CHAIR LEDOUX interjected that the bill is not moving out of
committee today, therefore, the committee can meet and craft the
perfect bill before attending the second session of the
legislature in January.
1:48:50 PM
LIEUTENANT DUNBAR advised that the vast majority of the language
in HB 126, whether originally HB 126 or brought across from HB
121, is taken from the Model State Code of Military Justice
created by the National Guard Bureau.
1:49:40 PM
MR. BROWN offered the following sectional analysis which read
[original punctuation provided]:
CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE; APPEALS
Section 1, page 1 - amends 22.07.020. Designates the
jurisdiction of the court of appeals over actions and
proceedings in a military court;
Section 2, page 2 - amends 26.05.140(a). Eliminates
protection from criminal liability for Guard members
charged with crimes resultant from their duties and
clarifies that any exemption from liability will not
apply to offenses under the Alaska Code of Military
Justice.
Section 3, page 2 - amends 26.05.228(b). Conforming
amendment;
Section 4, pages 2-36 - amends 26.05. Creates a new
Article, the Code of Military Justice. Of the new
sections in this Article, it instructs the adjutant
general to adopt regulations for a code of military
justice under the terms of the chapter to include,
p.3:
- Organization and conduct of courts-martial;
Provide for non-judicial punishment (NJP);
- Identify which offenses are subject to court-
martial or NJP;
- Identify allowable punishments for such
offenses;
- Identify rules of trial, pretrial, post-trial
and related procedures;
- Organize courts of inquiry;
- Provide adequate protection of classified
information;
Other sections in the new Code of Military Justice
include:
- A statement that all non-military offenses
shall be tried in a civilian court, p.4;
- Designation the exclusive jurisdiction of
courts-martial over the code of military justice and
that the code applies to all military offenses, p. 4;
- Sets jurisdiction of the military code over
deserters and fraudulently discharged personnel and
those members who commit their offense outside of the
state or live outside of the state when charged with
the offense, p.4;
- Details the duties and qualifications of those
who serve as judge advocates, p.5;
- Defines who may apprehend members accused of a
military offense and how that apprehension is to take
place, p. 5-6;
- Defines how a member may be arrested, under
what conditions they may be arrested, who may do so,
and how they may be confined, p. 6-7;
- Defines how a member accused of a military
offense may be delivered to a civilian authority, p.7;
- Describes the composition, duties, terms of
service, jurisdictions, and convening authorities of
courts-martial, p.8-11;
- Lays out requirements for who may serve on
courts-martial, and specifies that a Guardsman cannot
be tried by a service member lower ranking than
themselves, p. 11.
- Provides the requirements for military judges,
p. 12
- Describes the duties and qualifications of
trial counsel, defense counsel, assistant counsel,
court reporters, and interpreters of courts-martial,
p. 11-12;
- Specifies the procedures for bringing charges
against a member. p.13;
- Prevents the self-incrimination of the accused,
p.13;
- Defines the investigatory process,p.14;
- Lays out how charges may be processed and the
procedures for continuances, oaths of office for court
officers,p.15-17;
- Defines the statutes of limitations for
military offenses,p.19;
- Prohibits double jeopardy charges and describes
how pleas of the accused are to be processed,p.19;
- Defines how subpoenas and contempt of court
charges are to be processed,p.19-20;
- Provides for an insanity defense for the
accused and the determination for mental competency of
the accused, p. 20-23;
- Describes the procedures for voting and ruling
in courts-martial,p.23-24;
- Requires the recording of courts-martial,p.24-
25;
- Describes the allowable punishments and
sentences and prohibits cruel and unusual
punishments,p. 25-27;
- Describes the appeals process in the military
code, including appeals by the state,p.27-28;
- Allows for a vacation of suspension under
certain circumstances,p.28;
- Allows for the accused to petition for a new
trial and the restoration of privileges,p.28-29;
- Describes the composition and duties of the
Military Appeals Commission,p.29-32;
- Defines who may administer oaths for the
purposes of military administration proceedings,p.32;
- Allows for the governor to delegate authority
for the code of military justice,p.32;
- Creates a military justice account in the
general fund,p.33;
- Describes the system of paying and collection
of fines associated with the military code,p.33;
- Describes the pay scale of officers and
witnesses of the courts-martial,p.33-34;
- Provides immunity for persons who acted
pursuant to their duties under the military code,p.34;
- Defines terms associated with the new
Article,p.34-36;
Section 5, page 36 - amends 33.30.011. Further defines
'held under authority of state law' to include persons
held under the military code;
Section 6, page 36 - amends 33.30.051. Describes how
persons convicted under the military code are to be
restrained or confined;
Section 7, page 36 - amends 44.23.020. requires the
Attorney General to assist courts-martial in cases of
mental incompetency;
Section 8, page 36-37 - amends 44.35.020(a).
Conforming amendment dealing with the duties of the
Dept. of Military and Veterans' Affairs;
Section 9, page 37 - Repeal section;
Section 10, page 37 - Applicability clause;
Section 11, page 37 - Establishes and describes the
terms of office of the Military Appeals Commission;
Section 12, page 37-38 - Authorizes the adjutant
general to enact and enforce the regulations under the
Code of Military Justice, upon approval of the
governor;
Section 13, page 38 - Effective date for section 12
Section 14, page 38 - Effective date for the rest of
the bill.
1:50:24 PM
MR. BROWN referred to Sec. 4, pages 2-36, and advised it is the
meat of the bill of which a large portion comes from
Representative Tuck's HB 121, and explained it instructs the
adjutant general to adopt regulations for a Code of Military
Justice.
1:56:05 PM
LIEUTENANT DUNBAR offered a slide show depicting efforts to
create a system whereby soldiers and airmen can effectively be
disciplined using the Alaska Code of Military Justice. The vast
majority of funding for the Alaska National Guard comes from the
federal government and, he expressed, "in a sense, we get very
good bang for our buck as a state."
He explained that he is currently paid by the federal government
because it wants the state to have a common effective force, and
this process of creating a new Code of Military Justice will
assist in that endeavor.
He referred to slide 3, and stated that the Code of Military
Justice will allow the Alaska National Guard Commanders to
administer courts-martial and potentially convict guardsmen of
offenses. He pointed out it also offers tools to perform "Non-
Judicial Punishment," which is usually offenses more minor than
those warranting court martial, and allows commanders to quickly
discipline guardsmen using suspensions, fines, and sometimes a
bust in rank. He remarked this is an important part of HB 126
in that Alaska is one of few states that does not have this type
of Code, as most states have these regulations and use them to
good effect. The bill is not attempting to replace a judicial
system, he emphasized, in attempting to convict every offense
that guardsmen potentially commit. The policy of the prior
Territorial National Guard, carried forward in HB 126, is that
if an offense is cognizable under civilian law such as, a theft,
homicide, sexual assault, the default is that it would be
prosecuted by civilian authorities. He related that manner is
the strong preference of the National Guard as it does not have
its own police force, jail, or specialized prosecutors to deal
with issues like sexual assault.
1:59:44 PM
LIEUTENANT DUNBAR said there may be cases where civilian
authorities decline to prosecute something that the general
public believes is an offense. For example, he offered, the
most recent scandal involving the National Guard was behavior by
guardsmen involving sexual relations with recruits. The
civilian authorities, for a variety of reasons, decided not to
prosecute as perhaps there was not enough evidence or it didn't
tightly fit the definition of sexual assault but, he related,
there are military offenses broad enough wherein the offenders
could potentially be pursued for things like dereliction of
duty, conduct unbecoming an officer, drunk on duty. Those
offenses will be put into regulation should HB 126 pass,
although it is anticipated there will be a relatively small
number of courts-martials due to settlement. He referred to
slide 4, and advised there are three legs to Good Order and
Discipline, being: Administrative actions such as separation,
letters of reprimand; Alaska Criminal Law which applies to
soldiers and airmen living in the state; and, Alaska Code of
Military Justice allowing the power of courts-martial and non-
judicial punishment. Had this leg to Good Order and Discipline
been present prior to the activities leading to the scandal, he
said there is no way to know, but it would have increased the
likelihood of bringing Good Order and Discipline to those units
more quickly.
2:02:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that in order to determine how
well the current system works, or how well this could have
worked, this committee may consider going into executive session
as to what actually occurred in the investigation previously.
He advised he is raising that issue now in light of certain
procedures to undertake should the committee decide to subpoena
people. He remarked he does not know whether those procedures
must be performed before the legislature adjourns.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked if he had a question for Lieutenant Dunbar.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the attorneys involved in
this process are member of the Alaska Bar Association because if
they are Alaskan attorneys they would be familiar with Alaska
Statutes and Alaska procedures which will have relevance in his
following questions.
LIEUTENANT DUNBAR responded that the National Guard has members
of the Alaska Bar Association and those that are not, although
the majority are members of the Alaska Bar Association.
2:05:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG submitted that in going through [the
bill] will determine which proposed statutes are actually taken
from "Model Code," and questioned whether there is a body of law
for reference, for example, fraudulent enlistment. In that
regard, is there an annotated code somewhere so the committee
can determine how courts have previously interpreted the
statute.
LIEUTENANT DUNBAR advised he is holding a document published by
the National Guard Bureau, but it does not have quite the detail
he believes Representative Gruenberg was referring. It mostly
refers to the attendant regulations in the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ), which contains vast case law associated
with it.
2:06:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that if this is taken from the
regulations under the Code, the lawyers involved will be able to
see how this language has been interpreted by other courts.
LIEUTENANT DUNBAR answered in the affirmative.
2:06:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the committee will be
informed in individual cases whether the language selected under
the crimes are different than the "Model Code."
LIEUTENANT DUNBAR replied that this issue is later in his
presentation wherein he describes the process by which they hope
to determine the actual "Code" itself. He opined he will start
with a base line of the "Model Code," and through input with
this committee, through the chain of command, soldiers, and
people he is in contact with at the Judge Advocate Legal Center
and School, and there may be offenses taken out, added, or
changed. He pointed out that "absolutely" they will provide
guidance in a document to show where it differs from the strict
"Model Code."
2:07:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that Lieutenant Dunbar chose a
military model with the "Model Code," yet on the other hand some
of these in the offense area deal with issues that are defined
in the Alaska Criminal Code, Title 11, such as, attempts,
solicitation, and conspiracy. In the interim, he surmised,
Lieutenant Dunbar will be prepared not just to talk about the
geneses coming from the "Model Code," but the alternative
whether there is any difference between that and Title 11. He
advised his last statement refers to members of the Alaska Bar
Association because they will likely be more familiar with Title
11 than the "Model Code."
LIEUTENANT DUNBAR answered that the guard members most involved
in this process over the interim are members of the Alaska Bar
Association, primarily based at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson
(JBER) and hope to work closely with his office on exactly those
types of questions.
2:09:20 PM
LIEUTENANT DUNBAR noted that slide 5 goes to Representative
Gruenberg's point in that there is already existing relevant
law: the Territorial Era Military Code, Title 26 of Alaska
Statutes, but it does not establish a Code of Military Justice;
the Alaska Criminal Code which in most cases will provide for
prosecutions and punishments for the most serious offenses; and
the Federal Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which is a
fairly comprehensive criminal code with offense such as homicide
and theft and the like. He noted that the Federal Code only
applies to guard members when in a Fully Federalize status. He
referred to slide 6, and indicated that status is an important
part of the puzzle of which there are three main statuses:
Titles 32, 10, and state active duty. He explained that Fully
Federalized is under Title 10, when guardsmen are sent to Iraq,
Afghanistan, or other missions under the full command of the
federal forces, they are subject to the Federal UCMJ. However,
he explained, when they are in Title 32 status, which is what
most guards people are on most of the time when on their drill
weekends, for example. He offered that they are not subject to
the Federal UCMJ despite the fact they are usually paid by the
federal government. These individuals are paid by the federal
government yet commanded by the governor, State of Alaska, and
Adjutant General, and are not subject to the Federal UCMJ.
State active duty would typically be for disaster response and
commanded by the state and paid by the state, he explained.
2:11:19 PM
LIEUTENANT DUNBAR referred to slide 7, and offered there is a
gap in the law at the moment in that military offenses cannot be
prosecuted at the moment as the appropriate law to prosecute are
not on the books for military offenses when on Title 32, or
state active duty. Which, he related, means certain things are
not available such as, dishonorable discharge as the Alaska
National Guard cannot and have never dishonorably discharged a
member using state law. The "worst thing" they can do is "other
than honorable characterization of service," and there are times
where other than honorable discharge is not sufficient as
dishonorable discharge would be more appropriate. He pointed
out that is a tool he would like available by passing HB 126.
[Side 8 is a duplicate of slide 4.] He referred to slide 9,
depicting the five primary tools used to enforce Good Order and
Discipline: Administrative actions; Administrative separation;
and Alaska criminal law are all currently available, yet non-
judicial punishment and courts-martial under the ACMJ are not.
He referred to slide 10, which depicts the plan of action and
reiterated that HB 126 is a synthesis between HB 121 and HB 126,
which was joined within the Military & Veterans Affairs Standing
Committee. The bill includes several amendments the National
Guard asked for to expand the type of soldiers and airmen that
can be involved on courts-martial. He expanded that it gets to
the resource constraints they have in the guard in that it is a
small guard with relatively few Judge Advocate and other legal
resources. He stressed that the Alaska National Guard needs to
be able to draw upon other guards and the active duty components
that exist in this state. He expressed that HB 126 is a good
bill which would lead to a functioning system of military
justice; however, it can be refined in a number of ways. This
bill empowers the National Guard to create substantive offenses
and regulation and a Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) regulation
instead of putting them in statute. He opined that was the
preference of his command. Over the course of the interim the
hope is to draw upon commanders and more junior soldiers to
gather their input on what that should look like. It is his
plan that in the late fall or early winter to bring it to the
House Judiciary Standing Committee and other members of the body
and say, "if you pass
2:15:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to slide (Indisc.) wherein a
choice was made to indicate a middle ground, although as a
practical matter, most of the criminal offenses under Alaska law
will remain with the state. He asked why Lieutenant Dunbar
didn't say that the National Guard will take the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) except for the following, and carve out
a few things but basically there is a well-developed already
existing body of law with many reported decisions and it was
clear where it wouldn't fit in Alaska. As far as the interface
between that and Title 11, there is now a statute that says
normally if it is a civilian crime it goes to the civilian
authorities. In that regard, the wheel would not have to be re-
invented.
2:16:53 PM
LIEUTENANT DUNBAR replied that it is his intention not to re-
invent the wheel, and perhaps taking a slightly different wheel
than the UCMJ, as he will draw upon what other states have done
who have taken much of what they have done from the National
Guard Bureau. He reiterated the National Guard Bureau is
distinct from the active duty component. The National Guard
Bureau itself is a synthesis and only takes out parts of the
Federal UCMJ, and the Federal UCMJ itself is currently going
through a state of flux. He advised that the Federal UCMJ does
not directly apply in all cases for a variety of reasons.
Contained within this bill are provisions specific to Alaska,
such as, the Model State Code and UCMJ requires only two-thirds
of a panel for conviction in a courts-martial. He asserted that
the Alaska State Constitution provides a stronger right to a
unanimous jury verdict and so the law was changed to provide the
unanimous right through a panel decision to guard's members
which, he opined, is appropriate to the state law. He further
replied to Representative Gruenberg's question and posited that
the drafters of HB 121, in particular, and HB 126 drew much of
the language from the "State Mode Code" from the National Guard
Bureau rather than directly from the UCMJ, which is appropriate.
Differing areas, he offered, is that the "State Model Code" is
not perfect and has some things a bit archaic, such as, dueling.
He stated that they are in contact with a Major, considered a
legal academic at the JAG Legal Center and School, and said that
she and her students are working on this process and looking for
ways to update the Federal UCMJ, and also state codes in a
manner that makes them more relevant for the modern era.
2:19:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that he sees potentially
four different things: the Federal UMCJ, the state general UCMJ
that other states are using, "our thing," and Title 11.
2:19:59 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed concern in leaving so much to the
regulations as she may feel more comfortable working on this
over the interim, putting the basics into statute and then
issues more peripheral through regulations.
2:20:40 PM
LIEUTENANT DUNBAR responded that he does not want to leave the
committee with the impression that there is not a lot of
substantive law in the current statutes as it a 39-page bill.
There are many constraints in the bill and they are appreciative
of the notion that their ability to create substantive offenses
is a considerable power they are being entrusted with. He
offered that Oregon is the state they drew on closely and does
it through regulation. He advised that he and Representative
Gruenberg discussed the possibility of a legislative review
process.
2:21:42 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that the language in the bill is not
even subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, and basically
the legislation is giving the National Guard carte blanche, and
there may be discomfort in that.
2:22:01 PM
LIEUTENANT DUNBAR opined that he would not characterize it as
carte blanche as there are a number of constraints in the bill,
but it is true that they are being given more regulatory
authority over their own guard people than other agencies
typically receive over the general public. The reason being
that they swear oaths to uphold the Constitution and also follow
every general command. The degree to which the commanders can
already regulate its soldiers and airmen through orders could
surprise people. For example, an order could read "Don't do
this broadly," as an order does not have to be directly to a
guardsman, he said. In the event the full Administrative
Procedures Act is applied to all of the regulations it would
likely delay the implementation of these regulations for a
considerable amount of time. He stressed that they would like
to have a functioning Code of Military Justice as quickly as
possible during the next session. Although, he pointed out, for
those regulations and changes to regulations thereafter, to
implement a more thorough regulatory review process.
2:23:48 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX opined that the first group of regulations should
be adopted into statute because by then the members have all
vetted the regulations. Put those into statute and perhaps the
next group doesn't have to be in statute but still requires a
vetting process.
2:24:22 PM
LIEUTENANT DUNBAR related a concern of the National Guard being
if a regulation is initially put into statute and realizes it is
not workable, it could be difficult to come back and get a
revision. He opined that not putting initial regulations into
statute allows the flexibility to change things ...
2:24:44 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX interjected that the legislature deals with that
sort of thing all the time, as the legislature passes a law, and
if not working out as expected that is what the next session is
for.
2:25:06 PM
MR. BROWN responded that while HB 126 would be granting greater
regulatory authority to the Department of Military and Veterans
Affairs than other agencies or department generally receive. He
explained that when those agencies craft regulations, they are
crafting them for everyone in the state, Alaska residents and
visitors, period. The DMVA is asking for the authority to
police the 4,000 people who volunteered and swore oaths. He
suggested these are not comparable situations in that the extra
element should be taken into account as part of the greater
conversation.
2:25:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG argued that Mr. Brown's statement is
not always true, such as, the Alaska Public Offices Commission
(APOC). He advised that Lieutenant Dunbar and he had a
discussion regarding the initial language being in statute but,
thereafter, the DMVA could prepare regulations under the Alaska
Procedures Act (APA). The rule making provisions in the APA
quasi-legislature requires notice to the general public and an
opportunity to comment, but it would still come into the
department, he explained. The department would evaluate
anything and come back to the legislature in order to determine
whether there is a problem, he noted.
2:26:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN proposed a hybrid approach that the
department propose regulations for the legislature to adopt on
an up or down basis and not get too involved in the idea of
specific language in specific statutes or regulations. He
suggested the legislature look at the drafts as a whole, rather
than becoming experts in military justice, and it still receives
legislative review.
2:28:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered that having served as Joint Chair
of the Administrative Regulation Review Committee, that does not
work well and is a waste of time, he opined. "It seems like
whether engaged or not but ... how many regulation notices have
we gotten during session and, frankly I confess, I don't get
through the details like I sure wish I could," he posited.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he was suggesting something different
from just regulatory review in that the entire Code of Military
Justice come before the legislature for specific review in a
more systematic manner than the legislature gets from
regulations that show up from time to time.
2:28:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that he was thinking along the
same line in that they would submit it to the legislature, and
the Military and Veterans Affairs Committee that specializes in
this could review it, or the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
CHAIR LEDOUX reiterated that the House Judiciary Standing
Committee has the entire interim to review HB 126.
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony
2:29:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Bob Doehl, Deputy Commissioner,
whether he had any direct experience while in the service
dealing with the Code of Military Justice.
2:30:06 PM
BOB DOEHL, Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner's Office,
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA), responded in
the affirmative to Representative Gruenberg, and stated that as
a commander utilizing the Code of Military Justice for action
necessary to maintain Good Order and Discipline in determining
whether formal court-martial was appropriate versus non-judicial
punishment.
2:30:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER questioned when a guardsman is on active
duty for training, whether that is a separate category addressed
differently. He asked the status of a person who is active duty
for two-weeks of training stents.
MR. DOEHL answered that generally an individual on active duty
for training is under Title 32, meaning that they do not come
under the Federal Uniform Code of Military Justice, but rather
under state law.
2:31:45 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
further wished to testify, and announced HB 126 is held over.
2:32:27 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 5 ALCAN Engineering Support.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB 5 2011 - 2013 Alaska Property Loss Summary.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB 5 AGC Support.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB 5 AS 11.46.980 Determination of Value.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB 5 Crime Index Offense Summary 2009-2013.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB 5 Fiscal Notes.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB 5 NFIB Support.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB 5 Orion Marine Group Support.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB 5 State Chamber Support.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB 5 Welsh Appellate Opinion.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB 5 Welsh Case Brief and Commentary.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB 5.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB5 Section Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB5 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2015 1:00:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| HB0126A.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 126 |
| HB0126E.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 126 |
| HB126 SECTIONAL ANALYSIS - ver E.docx.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 126 |
| HB126 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 126 |
| Memo 15-101.dla.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 126 |
| HB 126 - ACMJ Presentation V4.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 126 |