Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 106
05/08/2007 03:00 PM House HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing|| University of Alaska Board of Regents | |
| HB252 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 252 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
May 8, 2007
3:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
University of Alaska Board of Regents
Erik Drygas - Fairbanks
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 252
"An Act requiring paid leave from employment for organ and bone
marrow donation."
- MOVED HB 252(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 97(JUD)
"An Act relating to identification seals for certain articles
created or crafted in the state by Alaska Native persons;
relating to the Alaska State Council on the Arts; and making
certain identification seal violations unfair trade practices."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 252
SHORT TITLE: LEAVE FOR ORGAN/BONE MARROW DONATIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LEDOUX
05/03/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/03/07 (H) HES, STA
05/08/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
ERIK DRYGAS, Appointee
University of Alaska Board of Regents
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the University of
Alaska Board of Regents.
REPRESENTATIVE GABRIELLE LEDOUX
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 252 as prime sponsor.
CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, Staff
to Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
252 on behalf of Representative LeDoux, prime sponsor.
BRUCE ZALNERAITIS, Chief Executive Officer
Life Alaska Donor Services
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered statistics related to organ and
bone marrow donations during the hearing on HB 252.
GREY MITCHELL, Director
Central Office
Division of Labor Standards & Safety
Department of Labor & Workforce Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed issues of enforcement and leave
donations within collective bargaining groups and answered
questions during the hearing on HB 252.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:04:59 PM.
Representatives Fairclough, Neuman, Gardner, and Roses were
present at the call to order. Representatives Seaton and Cissna
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
3:05:23 PM
^CONFIRMATION HEARING
^University of Alaska Board of Regents
3:05:58 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced the first order of business would be a
confirmation hearing for the University of Alaska Board of
Regents.
3:06:22 PM
ERIK DRYGAS, Appointee, University of Alaska Board of Regents,
offered a brief personal history to illustrate why he should be
chosen as a member of the board.
3:07:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated that she has heard from those she
has asked that Mr. Drygas has a reputation as a community
activist and advocate.
3:07:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH moved to advance the confirmation of
Erik Drygas, appointee to the University of Alaska Board of
Regents, to the joint session of the House and Senate. There
being no objection, the confirmation of Erik Drygas was
advanced.
HB 252-LEAVE FOR ORGAN/BONE MARROW DONATIONS
3:09:07 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 252, "An Act requiring paid leave from employment
for organ and bone marrow donation."
3:09:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GABRIELLE LEDOUX, Alaska State Legislature,
presented HB 252 as prime sponsor. She noted that HB 252 would
require employers who employ 100 people or more to grant paid
leave of absence to an employee for the purpose of making a
personal organ or bone marrow donation. The employer would not
be required to provide more than 80 hours of leave, but would be
required to provide no less than 40 hours, unless the employee
were to request fewer hours. Representative LeDoux said
according to Life Alaska Donor Services, there are 160 patients
waiting for a kidney transplant and under 100 people in Alaska
awaiting a bone marrow transplant. She reported that the
matching rate for bone marrow donors is rare: approximately 1
in 100,000. Blood Bank of Alaska - the entity that manages the
bone marrow program in the state - reports that there are
approximately 5 Alaskans per year donating bone marrow.
3:11:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH acknowledged a possible conflict of
interest, as she is a listed bone marrow donor. She offered
support for the intent of the bill, and referred to a sentence
on page 2, lines [17-20], which read as follows:
An employee who is covered by a collective bargaining
agreement may donate leave to or receive donations of
leave from an employee or officer who is not covered
by a collective bargaining agreement, notwithstanding
AS 39.20.310(7) and (8) [AS 39.20.310(8) AND (9)].
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH indicated that the issue of donating
leave is usually left "to internal policies and procedures by
individual corporations or companies," and she questioned
whether the state would be overstepping its bounds.
3:12:49 PM
CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, Staff to Representative Gabrielle LeDoux,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative LeDoux,
prime sponsor of HB 252, pointed out that the language in the
aforementioned portion of the bill is permissive; it uses the
word "may".
3:13:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH maintained her concern regarding
overall policy. Further, she expressed concern for an agency
that has staff on 24/7 shifts, such as the Alaska State Ferry
System. She explained that the employer may end up having to
pay someone else "time and a half" to cover an employee leaving
to make a donation.
3:14:33 PM
MS. MARASIGAN offered various scenarios involving employees
using leave to make donations, even suggesting the possibility
that the donor and the receiver may work for the same agency.
3:16:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that out of Alaska's entire
population of over [670,000], there are only 160 patients
waiting for kidney transplants and fewer than 100 people
awaiting bone marrow transplants. Furthermore, the bill would
only apply to employers who employ over 100 people.
3:16:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES questioned who would enforce whether or not
businesses were giving the proposed mandated leave. Further, he
asked whether a donation of a kidney would be considered
elective surgery or would be covered by insurance.
3:17:33 PM
MS. MARASIGAN replied that she does not think there would be any
way to enforce the giving of leave, but indicated that the
proposed bill language, once a part of statute, would facilitate
asking for leave. Regarding Representative Roses' second query,
she deferred to a representative of Life Alaska Donor Services,
whose testimony would be forthcoming.
3:18:35 PM
BRUCE ZALNERAITIS, Chief Executive Officer, Life Alaska Donor
Services, related that in the U.S., kidney disease is covered
under Medicare through the End-Stage Renal Disease Act. In
response to Representative Roses, he confirmed that insurance
covers the procedure of the donor and recipient; however, the
donor is not covered by insurance for travel expenses or time
missed from work.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said if the procedure is covered by
insurance than it is not considered to be elective surgery. In
that case, he questioned if the procedure would be covered under
the Family Medical Leave Act.
MR. ZALNERAITIS said although he is not an insurance expert, he
knows that the surgical procedure for donating a kidney is
covered by the same insurance that covers the recipient of the
transplant. He reiterated that that coverage is found under the
End-Stage Renal Disease Act.
3:20:36 PM
CHAIR WILSON clarified that the committee wants to figure out if
the donor could receive leave benefits if the procedure is
considered elective.
MR. ZALNERAITIS replied that since the donor is healthy and
otherwise has no medical problems, his/her surgery would be
considered elective.
3:21:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said someone in Wage and Hour [within the
Division of Labor Standards & Safety], informed him that state
statute "sideboards" do not apply to persons covered under
collective bargaining agreements.
3:21:56 PM
CHAIR WILSON surmised that that means [the proposed bill] would
not affect state employees, because they would follow their
union contract.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN agreed. He asked if there would be a
limit to the number of times an employee could receive paid
leave [to be a donor].
3:22:49 PM
MS. MARASIGAN replied that that is not outlined in the bill. In
response to a follow-up question from Representative Neuman, she
said among other states with similar legislation, the amount of
recuperation time that is allowed varies from approximately two
to four weeks. She talked about the idea of flexibility,
depending upon the situation.
3:24:38 PM
CHAIR WILSON turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Roses.
3:25:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH opined that this legislation would be
enforceable under wage and hour statutes. Referring again to
page 2, lines 17-20 [text provided previously], and she said she
interprets the language to state that the employee would make
the decision whether or not to donate "in and outside of a
bargaining agreement." She said she thinks an employee cannot
make that decision. She called on personal experience to state
an example, and said she does not know if leave donations can be
made between two employees at different levels of pay and
benefits.
3:27:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX promised to work on that issue if the bill
passes out of committee.
3:27:38 PM
GREY MITCHELL, Director, Central Office, Division of Labor
Standards & Safety, Department of Labor & Workforce Development,
at the request of Vice Chair Roses, addressed the aforementioned
issues of enforcement and leave donations within collective
bargaining groups. He stated his belief that the law would be
enforceable, although he said he does not see it as a
significant impact on Wage and Hour [within the Division of
Labor Standards & Safety] or the department. He reminded the
committee that the bill would pertain only to employers with 100
or more employees and only employees who work 30 or more hours
per week. He said there really would not be a penalty
associated with a violation; therefore, basically the law will
be explained and the employer will be persuaded to do the right
thing.
MR. MITCHELL, regarding the collective bargaining agreement,
said the statute in Title 39 really deals only with public
employees. He observed that the bill changes the reference in
AS 39.20.310 to paragraphs (7) and (8). He stated, "I can't
explain why this language is there. Maybe someone from
Department of Administration, Division of Personnel, could speak
to that issue, but I believe it's only applying to public
employees."
3:29:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if a union that is not a public
employees' union and has its own collective bargaining agreement
would fall under the same guidelines under Alaska statute.
MR. MITCHELL offered his understanding that the Labor Management
Relations Act requires union members to exhaust their collective
bargaining grievance process before requesting the state to
"pursue enforcement action of a statute."
3:31:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH noted that paragraph (8) in this
statute relates to the state ferry workers. She reemphasized
her wish that the sponsor clearly state the intent that the bill
does not support stepping "in the middle of a violation of Wage
and Hour."
3:31:51 PM
VICE CHAIR ROSES asked if "this type of situation" would be
covered under current regulation of the Family Medical Leave
Act.
MR. MITCHELL answered that it would not. He explained that the
donor would not be considered as suffering from a serious
medical condition, which is the "primary trigger to be covered
under the Family Medical Leave Act." Another accepted reason
would be pregnancy leave.
3:32:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN referred to language on page 1, [beginning
on line 8 through line 10], which read as follows:
An employer who employs 100 or more employees shall
provide a paid leave of absence to an employee for the
purpose of making a personal organ or bone marrow
donation.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN confessed to having an aversion to
mandates from government. He asked the sponsor to comment.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said replacing the word "shall" with the
word "may" would gut the bill. She said that in most instances
she would agree with Representative Neuman's philosophy, but
with respect to employer/employee relations, there are many
things that are mandated, such as overtime pay and minimum wage.
She concluded, "The potential benefits to the people that can
benefit from this are so huge that I'd say this is one of those
few cases where I think that the mandate would be appropriate."
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if Representative LeDoux is saying
that currently private industry must allow paid medical leave
for a voluntary medical process.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX answered no. However, she pointed out
that currently there is no law prohibiting employers from
granting that leave.
3:36:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said he has a problem with this issue.
3:36:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she shares Representative Neuman's
concern. She stated her belief that donating blood, bone
marrow, or any organ is a wonderful gift, and she approves of
efforts to encourage those acts. She said she would seriously
consider a state program along these lines. Out of the
approximately 30 states that have made requirements similar to
those proposed in HB 252, 23 have requirements that apply only
to state employees. She said it crosses the line to tell a
private employer that he/she must also make a gift of leave time
in response to an employee making a donor's gift. She said
while she would like to think that many big company employers
would want to do that, she does not think it is necessary that
the state make that a mandate.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said it is a policy call as to where the
line is drawn, but she explained that the sponsor decided that
the line would be "appropriately drawn" at the figure of 100 or
more employees.
3:40:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH, in response to Representative Seaton,
said AS 39.20 addresses compensation, allowances, and leave for
state workers.
3:40:57 PM
MR. MITCHELL noted that Title 23.10 addresses the Wage and Hour
Act and employment practices and working conditions for private
employers.
3:41:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pledged to work to resolve any issues
brought up by future committees.
3:42:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the leave time that would be
granted to the donor would cover the time it takes to be tested
and qualify.
3:42:52 PM
MS. MARASIGAN indicated that the intent of the bill is to cover
"the actual act of doing the donation itself and recuperation
time." However, in response to a follow-up question, she said
the bill "doesn't specify how much time would be used for the
screening process or for the actual procedure itself or for the
recuperation time"; it would just make getting leave possible
for those who want to be donors.
3:44:30 PM
MR. ZALNERAITIS relayed that the process of determining the
eligibility of a kidney donor involves the following three main
steps: psychosocial; medical suitability - to ensure the donor
is healthy; and immunological. He said the donor can have all
these steps completed while still in Alaska, but most likely
will fly to Seattle for the actual procedure.
3:45:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is trying to determine whether the
bill would require the employer to give paid leave to the donor
for that evaluation process.
3:46:04 PM
VICE CHAIR ROSES asked Mr. Zalneraitis, "Do you define testing
for organ donation the same as you do making a personal organ or
bone marrow donation? Do you consider those to be the same?"
MR. ZALNERAITIS answered no. He clarified, "Testing would
involve the establishment of health and the establishment of an
immunologic match with the recipient candidate, which is a
series of blood tests."
VICE CHAIR ROSES said he thinks that clarification "takes away"
the question that Representative Seaton is asking, which is:
"Does testing require then that the employer grant leave?" He
said the way he reads the language, it just requires that leave
"for the donation."
3:46:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that was not the intent of the bill
to make the employer pay for the testing, and she said she
doesn't think the bill implies that; however, she would support
an amendment to clarify the issue.
3:47:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN noted that the first sentence of the
second paragraph of the sponsor's statement [included in the
committee packet], read:
For living donors, paid leave may be needed for a
screening process, the procedure to obtain bone marrow
or kidneys, and recuperation time.
3:47:44 PM
MS. MARASIGAN explained:
The reason why that language is in there is because
... the nature of testing is different for kidney
donation than it is for bone marrow donation. And I
think Mr. Zalneraitis, you'd talked about what it
would mean to be screened for kidney donation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is not only the
whole screening process where ... you're checking on
the health of the donor, et cetera ..., but you also
have to do certain kinds of blood tests, even close to
the time right before the person has to make a
donation in order for that person to donate a kidney.
MR. ZALNERAITIS responded:
Yes, again, we're concerned about the health prior to
and up until the surgery itself, and so, testing is
done for matching as well as for health reasons.
3:48:37 PM
VICE CHAIR NEUMAN, in response to a discussion comparing the
language of the bill to that of the sponsor's statement, asked,
"You're just asking for the actual procedure to be covered by
the employer, not the testing - is that correct?"
MS. MARASIGAN answered that is correct, but emphasized that
because of the nature of the donation, sometimes a donor is
screened right up until the time he/she goes into surgery.
3:49:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH highlighted the language on page 1,
line 9, that read "a paid leave". She indicated that she
interprets that to mean that "a leave bank would not be taken
away to do this; that this is a benefit that we're considering
passing on."
3:51:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH reviewed some questions and answers
that had been discussed before his arrival to the meeting.
3:53:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked how many transplants or bone marrow
donations occur in Alaska annually.
3:54:33 PM
MR. ZALNERAITIS replied that there are 6-10 living kidney
donations made per year.
3:57:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 2, subsection (b), [line
9], which would allow an officer or employee, "with the approval
of the person authorizing the employment", to donate accrued
personal or annual leave to "another officer or employee only
for use as leave for medical reasons." He questioned whether
this would create "another type of leave that could be donated."
3:58:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH paraphrased the first paragraph of AS
39.20.245(a), which read as follows:
(a) An officer or employee may donate one or more
days of personal leave a year to the memorial
education revolving loan fund, or to an education loan
account in the fund, under AS 14.43.250 - 14.43.325.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH stated, "That's what 245 is speaking
to. So, if you wanted to donate to the memorial education fund,
you could do so, but that's not tying our hands when it comes to
the ... donation of bone marrow or an organ."
3:59:02 PM
MR. MITCHELL observed that in Section 3, the only change that is
proposed for AS 39.20.245(b) is the numbering of the paragraphs.
He observed that the only other change to statute seems to be in
Section 6, which renumbers some of the exceptions. He said
there doesn't look like there would be any change to existing
state law.
4:00:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH clarified the renumbering of
exceptions.
4:01:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if the bill would require an
employer of 100 or more employees to give leave to a donor, even
if that donor had already used up his/her personal and/or sick
leave.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER answered yes.
4:02:04 PM
VICE CHAIR ROSES opined that it would be helpful to have a leave
bank created through a grant and matching funds.
4:03:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA reported that her late husband received a
kidney through transplant and lived for ten additional years,
and she said she understands many others have been helped, as
well. Notwithstanding that, she noted that small business
owners are struggling, and she asked how open the sponsor would
be to adopting changes, such as that proposed by Vice Chair
Roses.
4:05:03 PM
VICE CHAIR ROSES closed public testimony.
4:05:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she thinks a business with 100
employees does not constitute a small business; however, she
offered to raise the number to 150.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES proffered that some businesses - such as
canneries - have over 100 employees seasonally, but hire less
than 100 other times of the year. He asked Representative
LeDoux whether or not her intent is that the over 100
requirement mean year-round.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX responded that most of the canneries are
run by huge, multi-national corporations.
4:07:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, as
follows:
On page 1, line 9:
Delete "shall"
Insert "may"
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said the relationship between an employer
and employee is one that should be struck between those two
individuals only. He reiterated that he has a problem with
allowing the state to interfere in that relationship by making
mandates regarding employee benefits.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH objected to Conceptual Amendment 1.
4:09:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH admitted that she had voiced the same
concern at one point, but had been willing to let it go to
facilitate a broader discussion of the bill in the House State
Affairs Standing Committee. She noted that "we" provide time
off for jury duty to encourage participation in the judicial
system and workers' compensation to encourage safe practices and
healthy employees. She said when people are on Medicaid,
Medicare, or extended leave while waiting for a donor to become
available, that costs the state in many ways, and there is a
social and economic benefit to providing a donor to get that
person waiting off the list so that he/she can reenter society.
She mentioned a preference for the bill to affect only state
employees/employers.
4:12:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA objected to Conceptual Amendment 1,
because she said it would gut the bill.
4:12:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered to work with the sponsor to
rework the bill so that it would apply only to state employees.
Regarding other examples of mandatory pay for leave, she
mentioned jury duty, but she said it is not optional, but is an
obligation. In response to Vice Chair Roses, she stated her
intent would be to offer an amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1.
4:13:57 PM
VICE CHAIR ROSES suggested that Conceptual Amendment come to a
vote as is. He objected to Conceptual Amendment 1.
4:14:28 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Neuman voted in
favor of Conceptual Amendment 1. Representatives Gardner,
Roses, Fairclough, Seaton, and Cissna voted against it.
Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 1-5.
4:15:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2,
that the provision apply only to state employees.
4:15:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN objected and stated that people can
contribute their own leave time on a voluntary basis to support
their co-workers.
4:16:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH reiterated that she had raised the
same concerns to the bill sponsor. She said the administration
has related that the bill is already within the confines of
labor agreements and employment opportunities. She explained
that the donor would be getting time off but no more money than
he/she typically would receive in a given year.
4:18:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said if the donor has used all of his/her
leave time, "it's got to come from somewhere; ... this money
just doesn't appear."
VICE CHAIR ROSES said in most large organizations there are
provisions regarding donated leave. He continued:
When they calculate an employee's salary and benefits,
and they build that into the budget, they calculate in
the average number of days that are taken in any one
year by employees for leave.
VICE CHAIR ROSES surmised that if a person did use his/her
leave, that time could be converted to days towards retirement.
4:19:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA proffered that when a person gives a
transplant, the recipient comes back into the labor pool in an
incredibly productive way.
4:20:59 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Cissna, Gardner,
Roses, Fairclough, and Seaton voted in favor of Conceptual
Amendment 2. Representative Neuman voted against it.
Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 passed by a vote of 5-1.
4:22:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3, as
follows:
On page 1, line 13, following "requests fewer hours."
Insert "This section does not require the
employer to grant paid leave for a separate screening
process."
4:23:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected to Conceptual Amendment 3 for
discussion purposes. She stated concern that leave coverage for
a donor would not be limited.
4:24:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained, "That's why I put the word
'separate' in there." He said the sponsor noted she did not
intend the bill to cover donors "going out to be tested."
4:24:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.
4:24:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4,
which would specify that the leave class created by the bill
could not be donated like other leave can be. There being no
objection, Conceptual Amendment 4 was adopted.
4:26:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH moved to report HB 252, as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
4:26:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON objected to hear a review of the
amendments that had passed.
CHAIR ROSES offered that review.
4:27:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON removed her objection. There being no
further objection, CSHB 252(HES) was reported out of the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
4:27:45 PM
[Vice Chair Roses returned the gavel to Chair Wilson.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 4:28:16 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|