Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
04/25/2019 09:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| SB114 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 114 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 114-VIRTUAL ED; COLL CR FOR HS; MISC ED ADMIN
9:02:29 AM
CHAIR STEVENS announced the consideration of SB 114 and stated
his intention to hold the bill in committee to work on during
the interim and perhaps with the House Education Committee.
9:03:18 AM
TIM LAMKIN, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said that SB 114, Version A, is
literally a merger of SB 30, the middle college bill that was
passed from committee earlier in the session, and SB 53, which
is about the University of Alaska accreditation reporting and
was also passed from committee. It also includes SB 79.
Committee Substitute (CS), Version S, for SB 79 was published on
April 12 but was not adopted by the committee. That CS is rolled
into this bill. Per the request of the chair, they will focus on
the changes in SB 79. He will briefly go over the SB 30 and SB
53 components as they go through the bill.
MR. LAMKIN said that Section 1 strikes all intent language from
SB 79. That was the recommendation from Legislative Legal. They
can read the intent language into the record if anyone wants to
look that up later, but it has no effect of law. They took out
the intent language to make the bill shorter.
Sec. 1-2: AS 14.03.073 (a-b) The first two sections are
technical amendments to existing statute regarding
challenging courses for core credit in math, sciences,
language arts, etc., setting things up for section 3 below.
MR. LAMKIN said Section 3 is the original from SB 79.
Sec. 3: AS 14.03.073 (e) Recognizes credit for extra
curricular activities of students, adding a new requirement
for school districts to allow course credit for career and
technical education, physical education, music, or art
classes for an activity, including a cultural activity,
outside of school hours.
MR. LAMKIN said Sections 4 and 5 are about districts reporting
on ratios. The phrase "classroom teacher" and a definition of
that were added, which is consistent with existing regulations.
Sec. 4: AS 14.03.078 (a) amends the existing Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) annual reporting
requirements to include a categorized summary of
administrative and teaching staff within each school
district. The new requirements also include reporting the
following ratios for each school district:
a. Administrators : Students
b. Administrators : Teachers
c. Teachers : Students
Sec. 5: AS 14.03.078 (c) Adds additional reporting
requirements that school districts must post in prominent
locations around the district, including on their websites,
the ratios reported under subsection (a), described above
in section 4.
(d) provides definitions for:
(1) An "administrative employee" as "an employee
who does not provide direct classroom instruction
for students as a regular part" of their job; and
(2) "classroom teacher" as being certificated,
instructing students, preparing course outlines,
assigning work, administering and grading exams,
maintaining classroom order, and communicating
student progress with parents.
Sec. 6: AS 14.07.168 Regarding an annual report submitted
to the Legislature by the state Board of Education and
Early Development, amended to include in that report a
current summary of middle college activity and outcomes in
the state.
MR. LAMKIN said Section 7 has a change from SB 79 having to do
with districts collaborating with other districts for
administrative and other educational services cost savings. The
current gap on the grant is $100,000. SB 79 increased that cap
to $200,000. The increase was talked about, but it is a result
of a miscommunication with Legal and was not outright intended.
That is a negotiable with the committee, of course.
Sec. 7: AS 14.14.115 (a) regards Cooperative Arrangement
Grants (CAGs) issued by the department when districts find
efficiencies by sharing administrative or educational
services with other districts. This section is amended to
expand CAGs to include not only district to district
cooperations, but also between districts and businesses,
nonprofits, and other state government agencies. It also
increases the CAG cap from $100,000 to $200,000.
CHAIR STEVENS clarified that it increases from $100,000 to
$200,000.
9:07:29 AM
SENATOR HUGHES said that was from two years ago in SB 96, which
was essentially 79. They didn't want to trigger a higher fiscal
note. This has not been funded recently, but it would give the
option if the Finance Committee chose to fund it. The committee
can decide on the amount. It would have to be funded. The intent
is to provide for incentives for districts to cooperate, perhaps
by sharing finance directors or superintendents. A cooperative
arrangement would have to include at least one rural district.
The idea is to streamline. There are a lot of school districts
in the state.
MR. LAMKIN said another important policy change in Section 7 is
that historically and currently, cooperative grants are between
school districts. The new language allows those to be between
school districts and businesses, nonprofits, and other state
agencies.
MR. LAMKIN said Section 8 is about finding opportunities to pool
health insurance policies, particularly giving school districts
the option to pool their district employees with the state
insurance pool. The cooperative arrangement grants could include
that transition. The grants would be for making that transition
for cost savings, but not to pay the health insurance premiums.
Sec. 8: AS 14.14.115 (d) adds new requirements for CAG
eligibility, including that if two school districts enter
into a cooperative grant, at least one must be a rural
district.
(e) establishes that if a cooperative grant is used
for health insurance pooling with the State, the grant
can only be used to pay for the costs of transferring
district employees to the State insurance plan, not
for the cost of participating in the new insurance
policy;
(f) allows a school district to carry forward the
savings realized by a CAG during the first three years
after the grant is awarded. The savings will not be
counted towards the fund balance limit established in
AS 14.17.505(a) [Section 8 below];
(g) defines "rural school district" consistent with
use of the term elsewhere in statute, and defined in
AS 14.11.025(c).
9:09:54 AM
SENATOR BIRCH asked, regarding insurance, what the disclosure
requirements are, such as the number of claimants, the amount of
claims, the solvency.
MR. LAMKIN replied that he would investigate that.
MR. LAMKIN said that Section 9 is about the unreserved fund
balances for school districts. The original SB 79 increased the
cap to 25 percent. The new bill increases that cap to 15
percent. This is a sophisticated subject matter. He has a white
paper published April 1 by the Alaska Association of School
Business Officials (ALASBO) that gives a good summary of the
purpose of account balances. They represent a common accounting
practice for flexibility in cash flow for school districts for
paying vendors and receivables on time. The state revenue might
be dispersed on a monthly basis. Federal dollars don't come in
that regularly. Districts need the unreserved fund balances to
make cash flow adjustments. It is also for contingency spending,
such as a spike in energy costs or an earthquake. It is an
emergency fund. It is his understanding that very few districts
hit the ten percent cap in statute. These account fund balances
are not transferable between districts. They are not a slush
fund. The recommendation might be to keep the cap at ten
percent, but it is an important policy consideration for the
committee.
Sec. 9: AS 14.17.505(a) is amended to increase the maximum
cap of a district's unreserved ("emergency") fund balance
from 10% to 15% of its operating budget, and allows an
additional amount to be reserved related to CAGs described
above in section 7.
SENATOR BIRCH said he has heard the account balance is fully
accessible during labor negotiations. He would like to know how
accessible that fund balance is. He suggested doing research
during the interim about arbitrators' decisions accessing what
could be a significant account balance.
CHAIR STEVENS said it would be good for the fiscal officers to
talk to them during the interim. He asked if the white paper had
a recommendation.
MR. LAMKIN said there no outright recommendation that he gleaned
from the paper. It suggested that the communication from the
administration was not entirely accurate about how the fund
balances are used and how available that money is to spend. His
preliminary research is that they are not slush funds. There are
stringent rules about their use.
SENATOR BIRCH clarified that his question is can an arbitrator's
decision during labor negotiations provide access to that
account balance.
9:15:31 AM
SENATOR COSTELLO said the fund balance topic needs to be
examined. Her discussions with the districts indicate that they
have requirements about having a certain balance on hand.
Legislators are a little ignorant on this topic. Districts could
present on why they keep these fund balances and what the
requirements are to get at the truth about the amounts and their
purpose.
CHAIR STEVENS said they will make sure they will examine that
during the interim.
9:16:57 AM
SENATOR HUGHES said that in a conversation with Mark Foster, who
had presented to the committee yesterday, he said that the
national standard is above ten percent, but he wasn't sure what
it was. They should find out what the national standard is for
school districts. The private sector has best practices
standards about how much payroll should be on hand. Whether the
committee resolves this or not, their investigation will be
useful if the bill moves to Senate Finance.
MR. LAMKIN said that Section 10 is the Praxis section. This was
largely rewritten from the original SB 79 at the request of and
with substantial input from the Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED).
Sec. 10: AS 14.20.020 (i) is amended to describe a
regimented process for the state board to evaluate and
adjust minimum passing scores on required competency exams
for persons to qualify for teacher certification.
SENATOR COSTELLO said she had concerns about how this was
addressed in the previous version because of an inherent
assumption that higher passing scores on competency exams result
in better results in the classroom. She would like to see
standards for teachers with states that have good results with
their students because they are making certain assumptions. She
is all for increasing the competency of teachers, but she does
not know if content knowledge results in better teachers. There
is a lot more to it. The mentoring possibility is important for
new teachers. She would like to see a comparison of student
results with teacher requirements in other states and countries.
SENATOR HUGHES said that she agrees that this is just a sliver
and not an indicator of how effective a teacher is, but at the
high school level, they want to make sure teachers have the
content knowledge. Physics, for example, was one area where
Alaska had a much lower passing score than other states. She had
a good conversation with the commissioner and learned that DEED
is talking about a more comprehensive approach because this is
just a sliver. DEED may have something to help ensure that
teachers are more effective that the committee could
incorporate. It would not just be the content testing.
MR. LAMKIN said anecdotally, and through research and other
comments he has heard in the past, the Praxis exam is perhaps
the most difficult, stressful, and intimidating process for a
teacher to go through to receive certification. In the context
of their hearing with Mark Foster yesterday, one of his points
was that student success in life was not necessarily driven by
high test scores. They could hypothesize that the same is true
for teachers. Having a strong score on a Praxis exam does not
automatically make them a great teacher. There may be instances
where someone might score poorly but be a stellar teacher.
SENATOR HUGHES said that when DEED brought this language
forward, they explained that sometimes there can a fluke with
the score. A test can be redone and not as many people will pass
as normal because of a problem with the test. This gives the
department flexibility to make adjustments.
CHAIR STEVENS said they will work with the department on this
issue.
9:23:36 AM
MR. LAMKIN said Sections 11 and 12 are consistent with the
original version of SB 79.
Sec. 11: AS 14.20.380 (b) adds a requirement for DEED to
provide administrative support services to the Professional
Teaching Practices Commission (PTPC).
Sec. 12: AS 14.20.460 (5) adds a duty for the PTPC to
reduce its administrative costs by accepting support
services from DEED.
MR. LAMKIN said Section 13 is a new section. The virtual
education consortium is a big component of SB 79. It was
significantly rewritten and consolidated to maximize flexibility
for DEED and school districts to develop the program.
Significant changes include expanding it to include online
resources for all grades, not just six through 12. It includes
resources, including training for teachers on how to provide
online courses, for both students and teachers. The third
significant change is with the fee structure. The department
"may" charge districts rather than "shall" charge. The original
wording needed clarity that districts would not be charged
exorbitantly for participating and that it would be prorated
relative to the cost associated with maintaining that consortium
database.
Sec. 13: AS 14.30.760 - A new article 15 is created
describing the Virtual Education Consortium.
(a) DEED shall establish and maintain a database of
virtual education courses available to all districts,
students, and teachers.
(b) Requires the consortium to provide training and
professional development for teachers facilitating
courses offered through the consortium.
(c) DEED may require a fee paid by school districts
making use of the consortium, determined in regulation
and limited to a prorated consideration of the costs
associated with maintaining the consortium.
(d) Allows the consortium to require districts that
provide courses or have students taking courses
through the consortium to adopt a shared calendar and
a shared bell schedule for at least a portion of the
school day.
(e) Provides a definition for "virtual education" or
"virtual instruction" as that delivered through
telecommunications or the internet.
CHAIR STEVENS said Section 13 is an important section. He
mentioned that his five-year-old granddaughter who is learning
to read will be taking a summer online class to make sure her
reading skills don't drop off.
SENATOR HUGHES said she had a long conversation with Posie Boggs
about reading. Regarding opening the consortium to all grade
levels, she doesn't like the idea of a child being in front of a
screen, but Ms. Boggs said that if a child was struggling with
reading in a small school with limited resources, there are some
excellent online resources that can really help a young child.
The original SB 79 had a way for districts to charge for courses
they were offering. Here the consortium may charge a fee for
participating districts. She asked if this would prevent a
district from charging. For example, if a school in Anchorage
has open slots for students in another district, is there a way
for the district to charge the other district.
MR. LAMKIN responded that was not the intent of the current CS.
If it is not made clear in the statute, it would be addressed
through regulation as a result of the work of the task force
that will develop the consortium as set up in the bill.
SENATOR HUGHES said that is excellent. She clarified that he is
confident that it could be done by regulation.
MR. LAMKIN answered correct. The intent of the new language is
to maximize flexibility between the department and school
districts to make the program work.
SENATOR COSTELLO said there would be concern about the section
that allows the consortium to require districts to have a shared
bell schedule. Districts have their hands full now with their
own schedules. They will want to hear from districts about that.
Not every school would be able to do that.
CHAIR STEVENS said that is a very good point. Every district has
a different schedule.
9:29:31 AM
SENATOR HUGHES said that is an excellent point. The working
group will probably discuss that. It says "may" require and
nothing in the legislation forces districts to join the
consortium. She spoke with [DEED Division Director] Van Wyhe who
said that it does become a problem. It gets complicated with
schedules, especially at the high school level. Since the bill
says districts "may" participate and the consortium "may"
require and the districts will be at the table to develop the
consortium, they will craft what works for the districts.
SENATOR COSTELLO said that oftentimes students pursue virtual
opportunities because their current schedule does not facilitate
them taking the course they want. It is a complex, integrated
problem. It is happening already. They are talking about
creating a structure for something that is already happening.
MR. LAMKIN said Section 14 is commonly known as the Read by Nine
section. This is comprehensive language that details ways to
identify, intervene, and focus on students struggling with
reading. The goal is to ensure that they are reading at or above
grade level by the end of the third grade. The draft language
went into detail and was from ExcelinEd, an organization in
Florida led by Jed Bush. They tried to make the language fit
Alaska. It is, of course, draft language. One significant
component that is not in this bill is mandatory retention. That
requires that students who are not at grade level in third grade
be held back with two exceptions, physical or mental disability
or English as a second language. Whether the committee wants
that or not is a policy conversation that needs to take this
place. Some would argue that students should be held in earlier
grades. Some would argue that humans respond well to deadlines,
so there would be more motivation to make sure students were
ready by the end of third grade. He is not suggesting one way or
another, just offering some points and counterpoints.
Sec. 14: AS 14.30.775 is a new Article 16 describing the
District Reading Intervention Program (RIP).
(a) Each district shall establish a RIP for students
in grade K-3 to ensure students struggling with
reading can read at or above grade level by the end of
grade 3.
1. Students will be screened once in the Fall,
Winter, and Spring;
2. Establish a plan and procedures to intervene
for students identified as struggling with
reading;
3. Implement the plan during regular school hours
through any available method.
(b) Within 15 days notify, and then regularly update
the parents of students identified as struggling with
reading, and include a description and progress of the
plan being developed to assist the student's
improvement;
(c) Details the manner in which districts must provide
intensive reading services and monitor student
progress toward grade level reading;
(d) Districts must offer an intensive acceleration
class that is of small size and accounts for most of a
student's contact time each school day.
(e) Each district must submit an annual report to DEED
detailing the number of students who have needed to
participate in a RIP and their progress toward reading
proficiency.
(f) DEED shall approve of a universal screening tool
to assess student reading levels, and in turn report
annually on statewide reading proficiency in grades K-
3.
CHAIR STEVENS said that is an important issue. They need to hear
from experts on that. He asked if it was only one year of
retention and no more.
MR. LAMKIN answered yes.
9:34:01 AM
SENATOR HUGHES said that it is a big issue. If they want to put
some teeth in it with some sort of retention, she would hope
that they would also weave in the goal that students would catch
up with their cohorts and if for example, they did not have a
problem with math, they would be able to stay with their class
for math. The readiness at kindergarten is fascinating. They
have talked about that in the joint committee. That would solve
some of the problem. This asks the department to have a
universal assessment tool. She wonders if there ought to be
something like that for kindergarten to show whether a child is
ready to leave kindergarten or start kindergarten.
SENATOR COSTELLO said she supports doing everything they can for
students to be reading at grade level by age nine, but teachers
are professionals and they can tell which kids are struggling
with reading. She is concerned about imposing yet another
assessment when they already do this. They have Individualized
Education Plans and Response to Intervention. She wants to make
sure that this is something that will work with educators and
professionals who are already in the classrooms and know which
students are struggling. She is open to looking at what other
states have done. She knows that retaining a child from
advancing in school is like a loss of a limb or a parent. She
likes the idea of a SWAT team approach once a teacher says a
child needs assistance. That could be an informal process to
have a child receive assistance to catch up that is not
necessarily report or assessment driven. It is difficult to
catch children up, especially when they see that they are behind
and they adopt strategies to hide that. If children don't read,
their ability to take advantage of their education is seriously
truncated. They adopt strategies to hide the fact that they are
not a reader. It is a complex problem and she hopes that they
involve experienced educators and reading specialists when they
look at the legislation more closely during the interim.
CHAIR STEVENS said they need to know what districts are doing in
the summer between first and second grade with the kids who are
a little behind to be brought up to speed.
SENATOR HUGHES said the Anchorage Superintendent had said they
were moving to a SWAT team approach. More recently, the
Anchorage School Board adopted a policy along these lines. It
might be interesting to get an update about the policy change.
It was definitely geared toward this read by nine approach. That
might be helpful in deciding what to do.
MR. LAMKIN said they could have a lengthy hearing on each
section of this bill.
CHAIR STEVENS said he thought that they would.
MR. LAMKIN said Sections 15 and 16 relate to SB 30, middle
colleges, dual credit. Sections 17 and 18 relate to SB 53, the
reporting requirement for the University of Alaska
accreditation. Section 19 is about the virtual education task
force/working group. That is set up to be led by the
commissioner of DEED and comprised of leaders in education
technology to develop the consortium described in Section 12.
Sections 20 and 21 are the effective dates.
Sec. 15: AS 14.30 is amended to add a new Article 15
regarding Dual Credit. AS 14.30.780 (a) Establishes a
Middle College program for eligible students in high school
to enroll in courses at the University of Alaska, and to
earn credit toward a college degree as well as credit
toward high school graduation.
(b) Every school district shall enter into an agreement
with the UA to participate in the AMC, giving access to any
eligible student to participate in the program.
(c) Eligibility: Establishes baseline student eligibility
requirements to include being enrolled in a public school,
be in high school (grades 9-12), to not have already
received a high school diploma, and demonstrate to the
satisfaction of both the school district and the UA as
being academically competent to complete college level
coursework.
(d) Awareness: Requires school districts to establish and
maintain awareness of AMC course offerings and eligibility
requirements to students and parents, including the
academic and social responsibilities of participating in
the AMC.
(e) Financing: A student ~may~ be required to pay fees
associated with costs of participating in the program.
Meanwhile districts and the UA shall include in their
respective MOU a manner of sharing costs associated with
providing the AMC program locally, including tuition
waivers, scholarships, and other means of reducing program
costs and finding efficiencies.
(f) Course Quality: specifies that courses offered by the
AMC must meet quality and content standards, including
quality instruction, and regular course and instructor
review.
(g) Credit Cap: Under the AMC program, students may not
enroll in more than 12 credit hours (full-time) per
semester, nor earn more than a total of 60 credits
(associates degree).
(h) ADM: Holds harmless a school district's Average Daily
Membership (ADM) calculation. Students participating in the
AMC program are to still be counted toward the respective
school district's ADM.
(i) Transcripts: Allows the UA and school districts to
exchange student transcript information for purposes of
determining program eligibility or for graduation
requirements.
(j) Definitions: Provides definitions for use of the term
"program" in this section as being the AMC program, and for
"school district" as consistent with other uses of that
term in statute, as defined on AS 14.30.350.
Sec. 16: AS 14.40.040, relating to general powers and
duties of the UA, is amended adding a new subsection as
follows: (c) UA must implement the AMC and may not require
an eligible student to meet any additional criteria to
receive credit under the program than what was completed by
the program itself. UA must further regularly review the
AMC course content and quality of instruction to meet
national standards for dual credit, enter into MOUs with
school districts consistent with the AMC, and award student
credit for course completion of AMC courses, which will be
fully transferable within the UA system.
Sec. 17: AS 14.40.190(b) Amends existing University of
Alaska reporting requirements regarding teacher training
and retention, to specify the report is required to be
submitted to the Legislature (Senate Secretary / House
Chief Clerk) biennially, by the 30th legislative day of the
first regular session of each new Legislature.
(a) It then clarifies that this report is to be
presented in a formal hearing setting to the education
committees. The scheduling of such a presentation is
intended to be coordinated at the discretion of the
chairs of the committees.
Sec. 18: AS 14.40.190(c) is a new subsection establishing a
requirement for the University of Alaska to issue a
semiannual report on the status of all its accreditations
within the UA system. The reports must be submitted to the
Legislature (Senate Secretary / House Chief Clerk):
(a) by the 30th legislative day of each regular
session of the legislature; and
(b) on or by July 1st of each year.
The accreditation reports are subsequently to be presented
in a formal hearing setting to the education committees of
the legislature, the scheduling for which are intended to
be at the discretion of the chairs of the committees.
Sec. 19: Establishes a temporary Virtual Education Task
Force, led by the Commissioner of DEED, and comprised of
leaders in education technology, to assemble one year prior
to the effective date of the bill, who are charged with
developing the initial structure and functionality of the
Virtual Education Consortium described in Section 12 of the
bill.
Sec. 20: Sections 4, 5, 712 and 19 have immediate
effective dates. Sec. 21: Sections 1-3, 6, and 13-16 have
an effective date of July 1, 2020.
9:40:16 AM
MR. LAMKIN said that in conclusion, one thing missing from the
bill that was talked about was calculating the average daily
membership (ADM) for students. Now a snapshot of student
population is taken during a 20-day window in October. That
drives a school district's funding through the foundation
formula. There was the notion of a second snapshot in, say
February, for 20 days and then averaging those out or even a
year-round average. That would put a crack in the foundation
formula and bulk up the bill because that section in statute is
referred to a lot. Because of that, they backed off because it
may not be timely to crack open the foundation formula and it
could easily lead to that.
MR. LAMKIN said interest was expressed that the consortium would
include a way for teachers to share and access lesson plans.
That seems like a reasonable policy for the committee to
consider. He informed the chair that that concludes the
sectional and the overall summary of the bill.
CHAIR STEVENS said the attendance issue has always been a
problem and maybe there are some ways for them to look at that.
He mentioned there was no public hearing scheduled, but some
people were online and in the room. He asked if anyone cared to
speak at this point.
9:42:58 AM
PAUL LAYER, Ph.D., Vice President, Academics, Students, and
Research, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, said he
testified previously on the parts of the bill that were SB 30
and SB 53. They offered small changes to the language in those.
They still have some concerns about the reporting in Section 6,
number 4. For the most part, the language is as they have
discussed previously, so he did not have any other testimony to
offer and offered to answer any questions.
CHAIR STEVENS said he did not see any at this time, but they
will spend more time on this during the interim and will
appreciate his involvement at that point.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if the chair was able to share with the
public and those there today his ideas for the interim work. She
asked if they would be publicly noticed meetings, would they be
open to anyone who wanted to participate, would there be named
participants, and what is his sense of how it would work as they
move forward.
CHAIR STEVENS replied that they are just formulating that now.
He suspected that they would have their meetings at the
Anchorage Legislative Information Office and would meet with the
House as well. The chair has indicated a great interest in
working on this during the interim. There will be public
hearings. They want to hear from lots of people. Just from today
there are several areas they want more information on. They will
formulate that over the next few weeks and try to establish a
schedule to meet.
[CHAIR STEVENS held SB 114 in committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01_SB114_Education_Omnibus_BillText_VersionA.pdf |
SEDC 4/25/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 114 |
| 02_SB114_Education_Omnibus_Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SEDC 4/25/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 114 |
| 03_SB114_Education_Omnibus_Sectional_VersionA.pdf |
SEDC 4/25/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 114 |
| 04_SB114_Education_Omnibus_FiscalNote01_DEED_AdminServices.pdf |
SEDC 4/25/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 114 |