Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
04/08/2015 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
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 | |
| HB156 | |
| HB85 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 102 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 85 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 156-SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES; FED. LAW
8:02:55 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 156, "An Act relating to compliance with federal
education laws; relating to public school accountability; and
providing for an effective date." [Having been adopted without
objection at the meeting of 3/30/15, Version I was before the
committee.]
CHAIR KELLER asked the Department of Education and Early
Development to provide a zero fiscal note or a clear record as
to the department's reasoning. He pointed to the previous
indeterminate fiscal note which was based upon the requirement
of providing a designation to the public system as a whole, and
not upon the potential loss of federal funds which, he opined,
is appropriate.
8:05:11 AM
CHAIR KELLER advised that the first issue is with regard to the
requirements within Version I, [AS 14.03.123(c), Section 1, page
2, lines [7]-9, which read:
(5) the methodology used to assign the state
public school system a performance designation that
compares the state public school system to public
school systems in other states and countries.
CHAIR KELLER conveyed that he has an amendment to delete "and
countries." He opined that the fiscal note analysis, page 2,
Section 1, implies there is a new requirement. He then referred
to AS 14.03.123(a), School and district accountability, which
read:
(a) By September 1 of each year, the department
shall assign a performance designation to each public
school and school district and to the state public
school system in accordance with (f) of this section.
CHAIR KELLER pointed out that the issue in question is the state
public school system defined in subsection (g), which read:
(g) In this section,
(1) "district" has the meaning given in
AS 14.17.990;
(2) "state public school system" means
the combination of all public schools, public school
districts, and state-operated schools.
8:07:22 AM
CHAIR KELLER said that currently subsection (f) does not
specifically refer to that designation or the standards for that
designation for a public school system. He put forth that CSHB
156 asks the basis of the designation given to the public system
as a whole, which the department has not been doing. He stated
he did not want to list the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) in the bill as the department may desire a
broader or different metric for giving a designation to the
public school system. He opined that deleting "and countries,"
and put on the record that the appropriate intent is for the
Department of Education and Early Development (EED) to use NAEP
in the public school designation, which will address the
indeterminate fiscal note discussion on that section. He
advised the analysis does not indicate that the indeterminate
fiscal note is based upon the fact that Alaska may lose federal
money. He opined that the discussion is a fundamental rights
issue that he does not want to get into with HB 156 unless it is
absolutely necessary. In the event the federal government had
authority under the United States Constitution to tell parents
and children that they have to take tests, it would have done
so. He reminded the committee that this bill deleted this
(indicated an amount of paper) which is the federal law out of
state law, and unwittingly there is one particular regulation
which states that Alaska cannot systemically allow students to
opt out of tests. He added he would like the committee to
consider the discussion as fundamental rights and the school
system is in a good position if it can entice parents and
students to take tests based upon the benefits. He remarked
that he is calling it into question because the requirements
that say Alaska cannot systemically exclude any students from
these tests is above and beyond the input that the legislature
has had, and he is insisting that the legislature has a voice.
He added that the people in EED and the United States Department
of Education are sincere and have the best interests of children
at heart, but this is a fundamental individual and state's
rights issue to be addressed.
8:11:45 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), agreed that the challenge regarding the
indeterminate fiscal note falls largely around the component on
page 2, Section 1. He advised the department is not attempting
to deter this bill based upon the fiscal note, but the challenge
is that there are currently district school, district, and state
methodologies and use Annual Measureable Objectives (AMOs)
derived from No Child Left Behind (NCLB). He noted that states
have their own sets of standards and now states have applied for
waivers from NCLB, and there is a divergence from a common
adequate early progress model in NCLB which, in effect, makes it
more difficult to compare states. With regard to how the
systems are compared, he noted, there are different sets of
standards and different accountability measures. He pointed out
that it has been a challenge, particularly with the removal of
the compliance to federal law, which potentially removes the
responsibility to take NAEP. It is a federal test and he opined
he was not certain how to adequately compare Alaska to other
states. He offered that NAEP is the one tool that is available,
given on bi-annual basis, to fourth and eighth graders, which is
a sample that cannot be broken down into schools as it is at
state level only, but it does a decent job of comparing states
to states. He said, "If that is adequate, we are doing that ...
I just am not sure ... I wasn't sure in regards to this, it
seems that there is more that truly allows us to compare our
systems ... NAEP really doesn't compare systems ... I want to
make sure that we match up with what the sponsor's intent is and
if there more than a comparison such as NAEP on a bi-annual
basis, we might have to develop something that will allow us to
compare."
8:14:41 AM
CHAIR KELLER related that NAEP is sufficient for him and
reiterated that the option is open for the department. He
offered that his ultimate comparison is an academic comparison
which is what NAEP performs, which is limited but also has good
credibility. He said that should the department prefer the bill
specifies NAEP, the committee will work on an amendment.
8:15:25 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY asked whether the removal of the
responsibility to comply with federal law makes this silent with
regard to compliance with federal law, and not prohibitive.
CHAIR KELLER replied "absolutely," as the United States
Department of Education, in 2005 or 2006, explicitly said
federal law was not required to be incorporated into state law.
Also, EED has stated, and the fiscal note reads, that Alaska is
in compliance with federal law. Thereby, by taking it away
leaves Alaska in compliance with the federal law, and it does
not go beyond that and suggest that the legislature defy the law
in any sense unless it gets into the area of threatening
individual rights, he said. He pointed to Sec. 6, requiring the
department to reevaluate, with the school districts, where the
state is on the standards based assessment process. The bill
asks that the legislature is involved in the process and offer
suggested action in the event laws should be updated. He said,
"And if failing our legislative action, everything that is in
law stays in place. That is very explicitly said in this bill
in Sec. 6."
8:17:43 AM
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development, recalled
testifying in 2005 on the bill establishing the accountability
system.
CHAIR KELLER pointed out that several members on the committee
also watched the process.
MR. MORSE advised that in 2005 it became clear what Alaska's
accountability system had to be under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). At that time, in state law was
a system called the Alaska Designator System for School
Accountability and there were conflicts between the two systems,
he explained. It didn't make sense at the time, he related, to
have an accountability system that said one thing, and
potentially another accountability system that said something
else about the schools. The department proposed that one single
accountability system be built to meet both state and federal
law. Since that time, he said, an accountability system was
built that is more in favor of the state's interest over the
last two years. He referred to the Alaska School Performance
Index which is more on the lines of the state's interest
discovered through the department's regulatory process versus
the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) system. He noted that it is
important to understand that within Section 1, it is understood
the latitude given to the department to make a decision around
accountability. Currently, he remarked, the department performs
a statewide accountability system based upon annual measurable
objectives. However, he pointed out, it does not compare Alaska
to other states, but the department's interest is that NAEP
could be utilized. He noted he was uncertain whether that
language should be included within the bill as it may cause the
department or the legislature to be in a box it may not prefer
in the future. He conveyed that NAEP is the only tool that
would assist Alaska in a comparison to other states in the most
statistically sound manner.
8:21:26 AM
MR. MORSE advised that NAEP is proctored every two years, in
specific grades, and covers English language arts and
mathematics. Due to Alaska's population, approximately 50
percent of the student body takes the assessment statewide, he
explained. He reiterated another concern of the department is
if the federal compliance was removed, and if the state became
non-compliant with federal law, the money used to build Alaska's
accountability system primarily is federal dollars. Therefore,
the cost to the state would be whatever costs it would be to
build an accountability system that is separate aside from the
federal system. He advised the last time the state went down
this path was building the designator system just prior to the
NCLB amendments to ESEA. The costs involved were costs for
technical design of the system, stakeholder input, and whatever
it costs to run the analytics to put that in place. Federal
compliance allows utilization of the funds for continuing the
system, and does not prohibit Alaska being compliant with
federal law, he explained. An unknown cost could be approval of
the standards-based and teacher performance system because if
anything there causes the state to go in a completely different
direction than now, there could be costs to switching those
processes at that time, he stated. He said he was uncertain
whether that process would require new legislation as fiscal
costs would be attached. He said, "The fiscal note would then
be attached to anything that occurred at that time because there
were costs that we anticipated in some of those other sections
if we had to build a state system and if we had to give up the
federal money. And that's why we put the amount of federal
money that comes in."
8:26:52 AM
CHAIR KELLER asked whether Mr. Morse had comments to other
sections as he has responses and questions, he asked the
committee to join him.
MR. MORSE said he previously pointed out the department's issues
with Section 1, and there are no issues with Sec. 2-3. He said
issues with Sec. 4, were put on the record as it is receiving
clarity around compliance with the federal law. He referred to
Sec. 6, approval of standards-based assessments and teacher
performance he previously cover as there are issues to be dealt
with as it is different from the way the department runs its
regulatory process, which is to put things out for a regulatory
review and seek input. He noted the department will have to
work through how this particular piece works for the department
in addressing soliciting regulation response. He pointed to
Sec. 5, and advised that the information obtained within the
assessments is good information as it tells how Alaska's schools
are doing. In the event a large number opts out, it is harder
for those schools to advocate for their good solid programs if
they are missing a large number of students participating in the
assessment, he explained. He said, "That's the argument to have
all students assessed, but I also hear the argument that you are
making, that ... in this case you want people to have a choice
around them and so it is a decision that you have to work
through, I guess."
8:29:53 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY added that he agrees with Deputy
Commissioner Morse. He referred to AS 14.03.123(h)(2), Sec. 5,
page 3, lines 14-18, which read:
(2) ensure that individually identifiable
data pertaining to a student collected under this
section is stored securely and is only accessible to
the student, the student's parents or guardian, the
student's teacher, and other individuals in the state
with a legitimate need for the information to perform
the duties described under this section.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY continued that ensuring the individually
identifiable data is the key issue and is a concern he hears
around assessments. He explained that assessments are not being
taught to the students, but are lessons taking place throughout
the year as a measurement on the student's progress. He said if
the department can ensure that data is protected, he looks
forward to making informed decisions. He expressed his fear
that the department has come to a point where it is able to
obtain decent data around Alaska, and not just for majority
students or Caucasian students, but for all aggregated students.
He explained that currently that data goes to students and
families, and to the schools. He remarked that the aggregated
not identifiable by students goes to the schools as a school
report card, which goes to the public. He related his concern
that in some of Alaska's small schools in rural Alaska it
wouldn't take much for many students to opt out to invalidate
data and the state has masked under-performance in the ability
to help address those needs. He clarified that he is not
advocating against more tests, or against parental rights. He
then brought forth the approval of the standards by the
legislature, and knowing what it takes to develop standards and
"for the legislature to approve." He said he has confidence in
legislators, but the legislature and the infrastructure in which
it operates appears to be a difficult place to "adequately
review the standards that we teach our children." Offering a
third grade example, he said there was a standard that says, "a
student can identify the meaning of a word based on the context
of the sentence and the paragraph." He pointed out that the
legislature would question whether that standard was
developmentally appropriate, is that measureable, are there
scaffolding skills in second grade, first grade, and
kindergarten that lead up to that, and whether that builds on
the skill needed in fourth grade so ultimately when they are in
fifth grade and graduate they have the skills necessary based
upon the skills required at universities and career training
centers. He cautioned that together with that example, there
are many standards and due to the legislature's time frame of 90
days it appears to be a large challenge and responsibility.
8:33:57 AM
CHAIR KELLER requested the amount of NAEP's cost to the state.
MR. MORSE responded that the cost for NAEP administration comes
under federal funding, and the costs to individual schools are a
small amount of time. He explained that the principal reviews
the list of students required to take the tests and determines
whether there is a student with a significant cognitive
disability, someone sets up the room, and teachers have to deal
with some students being pulled from their classroom. The
proctors are not active class teachers, but often are retired
teachers contracted by NAEP, he remarked.
CHAIR KELLER noted that Mr. Morse pointed out several times that
if Alaska is not in compliance there is a financial impact, and
reiterated that CSHB 156 does not take the state out of
compliance with federal law. Rather, he explained, it burdens
EED with further responsibility. He pointed out that education
in Alaska is a state constitutional requirement and absolutely
not a federal mandate. Education in Alaska is a state driven
assessment system and the legislature wants to be convinced in
order to convince parents as to what is appropriate and
beneficial. In effect, he opined, this goes back to Judge
Moore's decision that the legislature was not doing its job in
overseeing education, a federally mandated program. Further, he
stated, it is written in such a manner that the State Board of
Education and Early Development determines regulations for the
opt out provision and he is open to passing that responsibility
to the school districts and they make it a matter of policy for
their districts. He opined it is appropriate that the policy
comes from the State Board of Education and Early Development as
the board has the responsibility of setting policy for Alaska's
statewide system.
8:38:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER referred to AS 14.03.124(b), Sec. 6, page
4, lines 4-9, which read:
(b) If the legislature fails to take action on
the standards-based assessments or teacher performance
standards before the end of the legislative session in
which the standards-based assessments or teacher
performance standards are submitted to the
legislature, or, if submitted during the interim, the
standards-based assessments or teacher performance
standards on which the legislature failed to act are
approved.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER noted the concern of obtaining legislative
approval, and pointed out that they are approved if the
legislature doesn't act. He asked whether that addresses the
concerns of the department.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY agreed it does help him as there could
simply not be enough time and consequently Alaska's schools
would be in limbo. He reiterated that with the relatively short
amount of time, the challenge becomes committee members
determining whether, within a kindergarten standard, the
students should be able to count to 100, or 85. He opined the
committee may not want to go there but the challenge becomes
huge for the legislature.
8:40:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is unclear how the department will
establish regulations, how it submits something to the
legislature, what the procedure is should the legislature fail
to act, and asked for clarification.
CHAIR KELLER suggested Representative Seaton offer an amendment
clarifying that section as the intent of the sponsor "is
legislative and ... beyond that dialogue and vetting and
interaction ... you know, and so approval would ... as I
understand it the only thing we can do is ... the legislature
approve something is to pass a bill. So that's where I'm
viewing it right now."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned what would happen if the
legislature took action and the governor vetoes it, is it the
passage of a law, or the passage of a bill through one or both
houses.
CHAIR KELLER advised he sees it as law.
8:42:27 AM
MR. MORSE spoke to the language regarding "if the legislature
doesn't act then they are approved," and opined that it mirrors
language in the school accreditation standards adopted by the
State Board of Education and Early Development. He advised
those standards were changed once because school districts asked
for a change, and the accreditation process is run by school
districts and the department has minimal involvement. He said,
"They came to the state board, well ... the way that process
works is, we then submit, and I think we submit a letter to the
standing committees over our department at the beginning of that
session, after that regulation has been put in place. And then,
if the legislature doesn't take an action, which I make the
assumption that that action would be by passing a law countering
what was done, then those standards stay in place."
CHAIR KELLER opined that is consistent with case law.
8:44:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to subsection (5), page
2, lines 7-9, and referred to "the methodology used to assign
the state public school system a performance designation ..."
He surmised Alaska had a performance designation standard based
upon the annual measurable objective which is not comparable
with other states. He said, "I don't see how, unless we change
and make NAEP our public school system performance designation
... and give that somehow throughout classes, we can say that we
would fulfill this criteria by using NAEP and only comparing two
grades and high school doesn't matter basically about comparing
our self to other states."
COMMISSIONER HANLEY deferred to the sponsor, and said that was a
concern he had expressed in that it appears NAEP will not do
everything the department needs it to, and it looks like it is
asking for more than the NAEP. But, he noted, the sponsor
clarified that NAEP does allow the department to compare in a
manner that appears appropriate and meets the needs of the
sponsor.
8:46:20 AM
CHAIR KELLER referred Representative Seaton to a document he
previously passed out depicting AS 14.03.123(a), School and
district accountability, which read:
(a) By September 1 of each year, the department
shall assign a performance designation to each public
school and school district and to the state public
school system in accordance with (f) of this section.
CHAIR KELLER advised it gives the state public school system a
designator and specifically refers to subsection (f), which
read:
(f) In the accountability system for schools
and districts required by this section, the department
shall ...
CHAIR KELLER continued that it is difficult to determine the
criteria used to give a state public school system designation
in (f) but it does reference academic proficiency. The language
in Section 1 discusses a performance designation that compares
state public school systems, but it could be amended to include
academic performance, he said. He remarked that it doesn't
change things in subsection (e) or Sec. 5, because it is not
directly related to the requirement. He reiterated that the
added Sec. 5, page 2, lines 7-9, was intended for the process
used to give the public school system of the State of Alaska a
designator which has not been defined in the past, but assumed
it was being done but evidentially not. In offering a
designator to the state system, he could not imagine who else
would be compared to except other states or countries. He
reiterated that "or countries" will be deleted. He opined that
the interest from policy makers is "how are we doing," which is
a valid question so the self-designator which is done by the
department for the public school system is valuable.
8:48:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned whether the students are
allowed to opt out of the randomized student selection across
the state for NAEP, can it still be utilized to compare
nationally. He said, "We have a mechanism for actually schools
to take all their lower performing students and not have them
participate in NAEP, or in the test, and then change the
comparison."
COMMISSIONER HANLEY pointed out that the opportunity to opt out
creates the risk of altering the sample size which could
jeopardize the outcome and national comparability. He advised
that NAEP has a methodology of choosing schools and districts
around the state.
8:50:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND referred to the statement that the
principal of the school reviews the list of the students chosen
to take the NAEP test and perhaps remove a child with cognitive
disabilities, and asked for an explanation in how it is a
randomized test if the principal can remove students from the
list.
MR. MORSE responded that students with a severe cognitive
disability take an alternate assessment and never take a
standardized assessment in any testing condition as it would
provide an invalid score. Also, he pointed out, a principal may
be able to remove a student, for example, an enrolled student is
in the hospital on medical leave but performing studies through
the district in a correspondence set up. In the event a student
is removed in that manner, the sample pulls another student that
fits the demographic makeup of the student removed, he
explained.
8:52:34 AM
CHAIR KELLER read 4 AAC 06.820(b), "A school or district may not
systemically exclude students from assessment."
He opined that is a red flag which includes the motivation of HB
156, as to say Alaska cannot systemically exclude students from
assessment if that is a constitutional issue and a fundamental
right of the parents, if systemically means that Alaska cannot
pass laws to allow for an opt out, that's what motivates him.
8:53:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ opined that NAEP is administered on a
random sampling basis and asked whether there is a nationally
recognized standardized test that is provided or given to each
student. She noted that NAEP may have a useful purpose but for
the individual parents who may want to know how their child is
doing compared to the rest of the students in the state, or the
nation, whether there is a mechanism for that type of testing.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY offered there is not a national assessment
to compare students, but statewide there is the standards-based
assessment (AMP) that measures students on their proficiency
which does allow for a statewide comparison.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ questioned whether he is saying there is
nothing out there that other states may be using comparing
students across state lines.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded "No, I'm not because what that
would require is that all states participate." He offered there
are international tests but those are by state choice.
8:55:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked what the department considers the
SAT and ACT in that respect as they are self-selected tests any
child can take at the end of their K-12 education, but it
provides a comparison to other students.
MR. MORSE responded it is a national test in that all students
across the nation have a choice to take it, but it isn't a
comparative test as not all students participate. He added that
there are other "norm referenced" assessments, but are norm
referenced to a group of students drawn across the country who
took it when the norms were set, but not all states offer any
single tests. He pointed out that for ongoing comparisons in
how Alaska's students perform over the years relative to other
states at the individual student level, no tool has been used in
that manner in the state's educational history.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY added that Alaska's students perform well,
nationwide, on the SAT and ACT. He opined that is due to larger
groups of students taking the tests in other states, whereas,
Alaska has always been a voluntary system based upon parent's
payments until last year. Therefore, the sampling is small
compared to other states, skewing the statistics.
8:57:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to AS 14.03.123(d), Sec. 2, page
2, line 17-20, which read:
(d) ... The improvement plan must give preference
to measures that increase local control of education
and parental choice and that do not require a direct
increase in state or federal funding for the school or
district.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON advised that subsection (d) is with regard
to a public school or district that received a low performing
designation in that it must submit an improvement plan to the
department. He referred to the new language, in that it
includes "must" for the improvement plan and questioned how it
works in a local district. He noted that a portion of the
problem is that a local district, charged with the education,
has been low performing and according to the new language more
local control must be given to the low performing district.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY advised that the department always gives
preference to finding ways to empower local communities.
Interestingly, he noted, Judge Sharon Gleason in Moore v. State,
Dept. of Natural Resources, 992 P.2d 576 (Alaska 1999), found
the state deficient when local districts were not performing
well and local control had failed to make changes to that and
the state had failed to step in and provide additional oversight
and support, it was negligent in its duty. For example, he
explained, a trustee was in the state's lowest performing school
district and that strategy was met with great resistance as he
represented the state. He opined this as being problematic and
the department works to engage local districts to the greatest
extent possible.
9:01:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated he does not understand how, with a
low performing designation school district, they must give
preference to greater local control when it had complete local
control of the curriculum previously, and questioned whether the
legislature fulfills its obligation to be responsible for
education.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY stated the requirements for schools that
receive low performance designations, in this section, determine
the school improvement plans. With regard to the 12 lowest
[designator] schools, the state provides coaches and additional
support. He advised the state's preference is to advise the
school of its weaknesses and work with the teachers, principals,
and superintendents, as to where they believe the state could be
of the most assistance. He said he understands the concern of a
mandate on local control, but does not see it as problematic.
9:03:40 AM
CHAIR KELLER opined that he is gratified this is EED's policy,
which is the purpose of the section, as ultimately the answer to
a quality education is engagement of the parents, communities,
and local school districts.
9:04:38 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced CSHB 156 is held in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB156 Workdraft I.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB156A.PDF |
HEDC 4/8/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB156 Sponsor Statment.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| CSHB156Fiscal Note.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB156 Research Report.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/13/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB156 FY 16 proposed ed budget.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/13/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| CSHB85 Work Draft Version S.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 85 |
| HB156 FED LAW REVISE.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB156 Ed Week stories.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/13/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB85 Draft Proposal CS v P.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 85 |
| HB85 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2015 8:00:00 AM |
|
| CSHB85 Sectional version P.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 85 |
| HB85 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HEDC 4/8/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 85 |
| HB85 ver N.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 85 |
| HB85 Oppose UAF.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 85 |
| HB85 Support Written Testimony Sisson.doc |
HEDC 4/8/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 85 |