Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
03/10/2010 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB347 | |
| HB297 | |
| HB367 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 367 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 350 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 347 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 297 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 297-POSTSECONDARY SCHOLARSHIPS
8:37:02AM
CHAIR SEATON drew attention to the document from the Department
of Education and Early Development (EED) provided in the
committee packet titled, "Responses to Rep. Seaton's Questions
on GPS from 3/7/10, Submitted by EED on 3/9/10." Regarding
question 1, he referred to page 9, line 27, of the bill and read
paragraph (4): "meets other minimum qualifications to apply or
continue to be eligible for a governor's performance
scholarship." He asked the department for a full explanation of
the term, "continue to be eligible."
8:38:30 AM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
EED, said the term "or continue to be eligible," refers to a
student who has received a scholarship, is enrolled in a
postsecondary program, and is required to maintain a minimum
grade point average (GPA) to continue eligibility. The
department intends for the Postsecondary Education Commission to
adopt regulations in alignment with other financial aid programs
for continuing eligibility.
CHAIR SEATON stated his belief that the paragraph was unclear,
and suggested that rewording, and perhaps additional language,
could provide clarity.
MR. JEANS advised that including a minimum GPA in the language
would be restrictive; currently, when a student receives an
award, the continuing eligibility requirements are explained.
8:40:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether GPA continuing eligibility
standards vary between institutions, even though the award would
be a governor's performance scholarship (GPS).
MR. JEANS replied yes.
8:41:50 AM
STEPHANIE BUTLER, Director, Operations/Outreach, Postsecondary
Education Commission, EED, explained how on-going eligibility
for any financial aid program includes verification from the
institution that the student remains enrolled with satisfactory
progress. Satisfactory progress is a definition which varies
based on the program and the institution. For example, at a
vocational education school, satisfactory progress may require a
student to complete a certain number of hours each period, but a
collegiate institution may have different requirements.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the language for this aspect of the
bill was sufficient.
MS. BUTLER assured the committee that "continue to be eligible"
was the preferred language, as it would encompass verifying that
the student is enrolled, has not received other aid in excess of
the cost of attendance, "and things beyond satisfactory academic
progress."
8:43:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON observed that the committee needs to understand the
parameters for this language. He asked whether a student with
an "A" GPA, who receives a GPS scholarship, is required to
maintain that GPA, at a postsecondary level, in order to
continue his/her award eligibility.
MS. BUTLER replied no. She explained that the verification
required is that the student continues to meet the institution's
standards for enrollment in the program of choice.
CHAIR SEATON maintained his concern for clarity of the language
"continue to be eligible" and said:
[It] does not relate back to the performance standards
that they qualified under, whether they were an A, B,
or the C+ grade point [average], and those have any
relationship to the postsecondary.... This is
maintaining eligibility to continue in the program in
which they're enrolled.
MR. JEANS assured the committee that the eligibility GPA is not
tied to the level of academic scholarship that a student is
awarded, but is a continuation eligibility criterion once the
student is enrolled in the postsecondary institution.
8:45:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered Amendment 2, which read:
Page 9 line 26
After "include" add "two additional years if"
Line 26
Delete "time while"
8:46:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:46:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained that the amendment addressed the question
regarding military service, and the concern that a qualified
student might divert his or her award in perpetuity.
8:47:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER requested an opinion from EED.
MR. JEANS said the department had no objection to the amendment.
8:47:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH inquired whether similar deferment
opportunities arise elsewhere in the language of the bill.
MR. JEANS replied no.
CHAIR SEATON stipulated that the amendment would be offered
conceptually so that Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, could revise all applicable sections
to reflect the language appropriately.
8:48:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ removed her objection.
8:48:43 AM
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was
adopted.
8:48:49 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered Conceptual Amendment 3, which read:
Page 5 line 16 thru Page 7 line 6
Delete all of Sec 4
8:49:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:49:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained that this amendment deleted Sec. 4 from
the bill, in response to a letter from the Postsecondary
Education Commission indicating that the administration of this
program is not its responsibility. He asked for comment from
EED.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered Amendment 1 to Conceptual
Amendment 3, which read:
Page 5 line 16 thru Page 7 line 27 [6]
Delete all of Sec 4
[Although not formally stated, Amendment 1 to Conceptual
Amendment 3 was treated as adopted.]
MR. JEANS, responding to the chairman's request for a comment on
Conceptual Amendment 3, deferred to Ms. Butler.
8:50:53 AM
MS. BUTLER restated the concern that this responsibility and
authority belongs in the statutes governing the commission's
activities, and not the corporation's activities. Furthermore,
because the corporation would not have financial responsibility
for funding the program, the language in Sec. 4 was not
appropriate.
8:51:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the statutory reference contained in
Sec. 4 would need to be redirected to the commission.
MS. BUTLER stated her belief that the necessary reference to the
commission statute is already included in 14.42.030(e)
amendments.
8:51:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ withdrew her objection.
8:51:51 AM
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 3, as
amended, was adopted.
8:52:07 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered Conceptual Amendment 4, which read:
Page 9 line 23
After "six years" add ",providing the student
maintains Alaska residency,"
8:52:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:52:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained that this amendment addressed concerns
regarding residency in the state.
8:53:02 AM
MR. JEANS indicated that this may preclude a qualified student,
who gives up his/her residency to pursue an undergraduate degree
out-of-state, and then returns to Alaska, from taking advantage
of a scholarship to obtain a graduate degree.
CHAIR SEATON surmised a student could maintain his/her residency
when attending school Outside. He asked whether the commission
held a position on student residency.
MS. BUTLER said no.
8:54:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ removed her objection.
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 4 was
adopted.
8:54:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered Conceptual Amendment 5, modified to read:
Page 17 line 10
Delete ",or five-point scale for advanced placement
classes,"
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:55:48 AM
MR. JEANS said EED supported Amendment 5. The intent of the
department is to adopt regulations that require all districts to
use a conversion matrix to a four-point scale.
8:56:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER voiced concern that passage of this
amendment may discourage students from taking advanced placement
(AP) courses, which are considered college level, and require a
higher work load. If students are worried that their GPA may
suffer, thus jeopardizing receipt of a GPS, a student may decide
not to take an AP class.
MR. JEANS explained that the department does not hold that
concern, because a school district may continue to use a five-
point credit scale for students' transcripts; however, for the
purpose of calculating eligibility under the GPS program, a
uniform scale would be used.
8:57:12 AM
CHAIR SEATON requested further clarification on how eligibility
would be handled by school districts and the department.
MR. JEANS said the department would require districts to
determine eligibility levels utilizing a four-point grading
scale, and that information would be transmitted to the
commission.
8:58:24 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether a student's AP class, attended in a
district using a five-point scale, could be converted for the
department's purposes.
MR. JEANS replied that an "A," using a five-point scale, would
be reported [as an "A"] on a four-point scale for purposes of
the GPS. On the student's transcript, it would be reflected as
a five-point award.
8:59:11 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the postsecondary commission held a
position on the amendment.
MS. BUTLER answered no.
8:59:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ removed her objection.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected to the amendment, and restated
her reason. She then emphasized that the bill "is not about
giving kids money for college ... it's about trying to engage
students in making choices for the highest rigor, and I think
that this amendment reduces that.... For me, it's about rigor
and it's about excellence in education."
9:00:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH indicated his support for the amendment, and
stated that he did not believe it would prove discouraging to
students, particularly for students who aspire to attend college
outside of Alaska.
9:01:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked the department for an opinion on
Representative Gardner's concern.
MR. JEANS said the concern is understood, however, the bill
requires a GPA of at least 3.5 for a student to qualify for the
highest GPS tier. Therefore, a student is not required to
attain all "A"s, in order to qualify for the highest tier. He
acknowledged it is possible for a student's GPA to fall if
he/she chose to take all AP classes.
9:02:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether successful completion of an
AP course and exam allows a student to be eligible for six units
at a qualifying university. If so, this is an effective
incentive for taking AP courses.
CHAIR SEATON agreed that there are additional benefits for
taking AP courses, including possible college credit.
9:04:16 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Munoz, Keller,
Buch, and Seaton voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 5.
Representative Gardner voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual
Amendment 5 was adopted by a vote of 4-1.
9:05:33 AM
CHAIR SEATON indicated that the committee questions compiled and
posed to the commissioner's office, along with the responses,
would be forwarded with the bill for clarification.
9:06:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER then called attention to page 9, lines
16-21, and asked whether this provision allows a student, who
has never attended high school in Alaska, to be eligible for a
GPS award. She surmised this circumstance would apply primarily
to children of an active duty military family.
MR. JEANS clarified that the intent of this language is to allow
eligibility for students who have begun their high school career
in Alaska, and are on track for a GPS award, and then the family
is redeployed out-of-state. These students would be allowed the
opportunity to complete the program.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER suggested an amendment to stipulate that
a student must complete at least two years of high school, in
Alaska, in order to qualify.
MR. JEANS replied that the department's intent was to address
the issue through the State Board of Education & Early
Development regulatory process, and gave no opinion on the
proposed amendment.
9:07:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered Conceptual Amendment 6 to insert
language stipulating that a student would be required to hold
two years of high school credit from Alaska at page 9, lines 16-
21, subparagraph (B).
9:08:36 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified Conceptual Amendment 6 which read:
Page 9, line 20
Following "who"
Insert "has completed at least two years of high
school in Alaska"
9:08:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion, and agreed
that the intent of the language in the subparagraph was unclear.
A student may never attend school in Alaska, yet retain the
possibility of receiving an award. He directed attention to the
document in the committee packet titled, "Responses to Rep.
Seaton's GPS Questions from 3/7/10, Submitted by EED 3/9/10,"
page 2, and paraphrased the department's reply, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 9, line 18. "for purposes of this subparagraph,
allowable circumstances include a circumstance in
which a high school student who is an Alaska resident
left the state because of the military service of the
student's custodial parent who is an Alaska resident."
9:10:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether there are legal concerns
caused by the amendment.
JEAN MISCHEL, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, stated
that because of the structure of the bill, eligibility criteria
exist in various sections. The amendment would only address the
extension of time for the scholarship usage, and the committee's
concern is for initial eligibility, which is provided for on
page 9, lines 8-21. In that provision there is already a
requirement of Alaska residence in graduation from high school,
in this state. Ms. Mischel opined amending the extension of
time provision would be inconsistent, and may have the opposite
effect of what the committee is attempting to accomplish, which
is to allow an extension of time after only attending high
school in Alaska. All applicants would be required to meet the
eligibility criteria whether they are military or not.
CHAIR SEATON warned that the language appears to provide an
exception for children with resident status, due to military
circumstances, who may be absent from the state for eight years.
MS. MISCHEL agreed that the interpretation of the exemption
could be read to allow eligibility for a high school student not
attending high school in Alaska.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether language adding the qualification of
two years of high school attendance in Alaska may lead to a
legal challenge.
MS. MISCHEL said adding a two year requirement would be safer
than leaving it open-ended, from an equal protection standpoint.
9:15:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pondered whether it is a bad thing to
entice the "cream of the crop" to come to Alaska for
postsecondary education. He surmised that departmental
regulation would ensure that the criteria for a student entering
the state would be determined equal to that of the
qualifications of an in-state applicant.
MR. JEANS explained that when a student transfers into the
state, districts evaluate his/her transcript, and that process
would not be changed. He opined Amendment 6 requires a student,
who leaves the state, to have completed two years of high school
in Alaska, in order to qualify for the scholarship program.
However, a student who is new to the state, can transfer in
their senior year, meet residency and other requirements, and
qualify for a GPS award. The section does not prohibit a
student from moving into the state and taking advantage of the
scholarship program.
9:17:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated that the department will establish
regulations for qualification, but the committee must determine
the policy on which the regulations are based.
MR. JEANS concurred.
9:17:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH questioned whether the amendment establishes
a policy of discrimination.
CHAIR SEATON interjected that the committee is providing an
exemption policy for military transfers, so they may be allowed
to satisfy the high school graduation requirement elsewhere than
in Alaska. The exemption would stipulate that at least two of
their high school years must be at an Alaskan school, in
addition to other qualifying criteria.
9:19:10 AM
CHAIR SEATON removed his objection to Conceptual Amendment 6.
9:19:24 AM
There being no further objection, Amendment 6 was adopted.
9:20:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER directed attention to the document in the
committee packet titled, "Responses to Rep. Gardner's GPS
Questions, from 3/9/10, Submitted by EED 3/9/10, page 1, item
number three, and paraphrased the question which read [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 10: Eligibility for academic scholarship: I
believe we discussed the possibility of a student who
graduates in May while lacking one or more of the GPS
required classes and wants to [meet] the
qualifications by taking summer classes. Is this
possible under the language of Sec. 14.43.820?
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled that this had been previously
discussed and the commissioner said it would be possible.
However, she pointed out that the student would already have
graduated, without meeting the requirements.
MR. JEANS opined AS 14.43.830 allows for an alternative pathway
and a "make-up procedure," when approved by the department.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether that holds true "even if
the deficit was not caused by circumstances beyond the student's
control."
9:23:33 AM
CHAIR SEATON indicated his understanding that courses would need
to be completed prior to graduation; if not, the timeframe to
apply for a GPS would remain open-ended. He related the intent
of the legislation was to encourage students "to make their
educational plans."
MR. JEANS corrected his previous statement, and concluded that
if a student had the opportunity, and did not meet the
requirements, then he/she could not apply for a GPS.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked:
So, somebody who's met the requirements for
graduation, but not met the requirements for the
scholarship, could simply not apply to graduate, until
they met the scholarship requirements?
MR. JEANS pointed out that high school graduation requirements
are different than the requirements to qualify for the GPS; in
fact, a student can fail the high school qualifying exam and
receive a certificate of attendance. Thus, a student cannot
"opt-out" of graduation if the requirements have been met.
CHAIR SEATON requested the commissioner's comments on this
subject.
9:26:31 AM
LARRY LEDOUX, Commissioner, EED, explained the current
graduation eligibility and requirements. An application to
graduate is only necessary for a student to graduate early, and
is basically an informal meeting with a counselor to ascertain
whether the student has sufficient credits. Commissioner LeDoux
reported how some students meet requirements prior to the final
semester of their senior year, leave to attend college, and
return to participate in graduation ceremonies with their class.
9:28:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to page 12, lines 16-19, and
noted language which read, "require very high academic
achievement," "require high academic achievement," and "require
moderate academic achievement." He pointed out that the tiers
of the scholarship awards are identified elsewhere in the bill
by different language, and asked the department for
clarification.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX said the department would review the cited
language to eliminate any confusion.
CHAIR SEATON referred to the document in the committee packet
titled, "Responses to Rep. Seaton's Questions on GPS from
3/7/10, submitted by EED on 3/9/10, page 4, item 9. He
paraphrased EED's response, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
The comments "very high", "high" and "moderate" are
editorial references to the merit academic tiers for
initial GPS eligibility.
CHAIR SEATON then directed attention to page 10, lines 20-27, to
indicate where the tier levels are identified, and requested a
legal opinion about the inclusion of both citations. He
suggested a new concept was being introduced by the reference on
page 12.
9:31:44 AM
MS. MISCHEL said the tiers serve two purposes, which causes
confusion. There was a need to provide a means for distinction
for the awards because page 12, paragraph (1) contains set
percentages based upon the tiers, which correlate not only to
the grades but also to the test scores. Although more
consistency in the language would be helpful, page 12 does
require a distinction in the award section that correlates to
the minimum test score and the minimum grade criterion found on
pages 10-11.
9:32:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH suggested removing "achievement" and
inserting "recognition." Changing these terms might clarify a
student's activity versus the department's observations.
9:33:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to page 10, line 20, where the
three tiers are established as follows: A average tier; B
average tier; C plus average tier. He pointed out that on page
12, line 16, the highest tier is identified by "very high
academic achievement," which could be presumed to be an A
average tier. However, without the same name it is neither
consistent, nor clearly defined, in the bill. The A, B, and C
average tiers have been defined, but not the three achievement
terms.
MR. JEANS opined that the language is appropriate. He directed
attention to page 8, line [5], where the purpose of the program
is established, and read: "[The merit-based] academic
scholarship consists of three levels of award[s]." Turning to
page 10, he said the eligibility criteria for the academic
scholarship is described and includes the GPA, standardized test
scores, and curriculum. Three criteria must be met in order to
be considered for a level of award. Following that, the section
on page 12 details each award. Mr. Jeans advised that the bill:
(1) describes the tiers; (2) describes how to qualify within the
tiers; (3) describes the award level for each tier.
9:36:25 AM
CHAIR SEATON agreed that the progression was established;
however, the wording of the levels of awards should be
consistent. Legality of the language is not a question, he
said, only clarity of language.
MR. JEANS cautioned using A, B, C [plus] for award levels as
those represent the GPA for eligibility criteria. An A GPA
might rank students for the highest tier, but if their
assessment score is low, it would alter that ranking; moreover,
there are three eligibility criteria to be considered.
CHAIR SEATON maintained his concern, and said that it is being
called an A average tier.
MS. MISCHEL offered to clarify the language.
9:38:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON turned to page 12, line [28], and read [original
punctuation provided]:
A part-time student who receives a merit-based
academic scholarship and is enrolled on at least a
half-time basis is eligible for an award on a pro rata
basis.
CHAIR SEATON referred to the document in the committee packet
titled, "Responses to Rep. Seaton's Questions on GPS from
3/7/10, Submitted by EED on 3/9/10, page 4, number 10, bullets
4-5, and read [original punctuation provided]:
Subject to the half-time cap noted below, students
will be awarded scholarship funds based on their cost
of attendance for between 6 and 11 credits.
The maximum merit award a half-time student can
qualify for will be 50% of the maximum applicable to
their tier.
CHAIR SEATON surmised that pro rata is not based on the credit
hours a student is taking thus, a half-time student could
qualify for one-half of a tier. The use of the term pro rata
may cause a dispute, unless the intent is to provide a pro rata
amount based on percentages.
9:39:55 AM
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX offered to clarify the language, because it
is not the intent of the department to provide payment based on
credits.
9:40:09 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered Conceptual Amendment 7, which read:
Page 12, line 29
Delete: "on a pro rata basis"
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ objected for the purpose of discussion, and
asked whether this applies to a student's attendance at the
secondary or postsecondary level.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that if a student attends less than half-
time at a postsecondary institution, he/she would not qualify to
receive an award, and if a student garners 6-11 credits he/she
qualifies for 50 percent of the tier award.
9:41:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ removed her objection.
9:41:59 AM
[Although not formally stated, Conceptual Amendment 7 was
adopted.]
9:42:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to page 15, lines 3-4, and read,
"the deficit was caused by rare and unusual circumstances
outside the control of the student." He recalled that different
scenarios have been discussed regarding this language, including
accommodations for special needs students, and requested further
comments from the department.
9:43:08 AM
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX assured the committee individualized
educational programs (IEPs) requiring specific testing
accommodations would be honored by testing organizations such as
American College Testing (ACT) and Scholastic Aptitude Test
(SAT). However, the language on page 15, line 4, of the bill
does not refer to special education students or students with
IEPs, but to students affected by a rare or unusual circumstance
outside the control of the student, such as a disaster, and thus
allows the department discretion. Further, he opined that one
strength of the bill is that the department is able to recognize
individual circumstances.
9:44:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER requested clarification for how home
school students would fit into the process.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX said that home school students are fully
participatory in this program and are expected to meet the same
requirements as other students. Parents are expected to present
an evaluation system to the department, and show that the
student's work history proves evidence of achievement in a
rigorous curriculum.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether private school graduates are
evaluated for eligibility by a public school administrator.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX underscored that private school students
would also be fully eligible, and must meet the same
requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER surmised that graduation from a public
school was not required.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX concurred.
[HB 297 was held over.]
9:46:48 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:46 a.m. to 9:48 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 367 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/26/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 367 |
| HB 367 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 367 |
| HB 367 powerpoint.pdf |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 367 |
| HB 367 Letter.pdf |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 367 |
| HB 367 Background.pdf |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 367 |
| HB367-REV-TAX-03-09-10 Education Tax Credits.pdf |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| current program flow chart.docx |
HEDC 3/3/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 350 |
| HB350 program flow chart.docx |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 350 |
| CS HB 297 GPS Work-Draft.pdf |
HEDC 3/8/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| GPS Responses to Rep. Seaton 3.7.10.doc |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| GPS Responses to Rep. Gardner 3.9.10.doc |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| MeyerThomasSeaton 030910.pdf |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HB350-EED-ESS-2-18-10.pdf |
HEDC 2/19/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/3/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 350 |
| FY02-11LocalEffortAssessed&educationWithMills-2Pager_10-22-09.xlsx |
HEDC 2/19/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/3/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 350 |
| HB 347 sponsor statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/3/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |
| HB 347 backup.pdf |
HEDC 3/3/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |
| HB 347 sectional.pdf |
HEDC 3/3/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |
| Conceptual amendment to CS HB 367 Version R.docx |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 367 |
| HB 367 Work-Draft version R.pdf |
HEDC 3/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 367 |