Legislature(2009 - 2010)
04/16/2010 10:47 AM House FIN
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 221(EDC)
"An Act establishing an advisory task force on higher
education and career readiness in the legislative
branch of government; and providing for an effective
date."
5:20:35 PM
Co-Chair Hawker MOVED to ADOPT HCS CS SB 221, work draft
26-LS1309\M, Mischel, 4/16/10 as a working document.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
BEN MULLIGAN, STAFF, HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE, provided a
sectional analysis of the bill. The program had been
renamed "The Alaska Merit Scholarship Program". Section 1
established district determination of student eligibility.
Section 2 gave the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary
Education (ACPE) the ability to adopt regulations
pertaining to the merit program. Section 3, which was part
of the Alaska Advantage Grant Program, raised the amount of
needs based funding per school year from $2,000 to $3,000.
Section 4 states that a student may not receive more than a
total of $12,000 (formerly $8,000) in awarded grants.
Section 5 established the eligibility and awards structure
of the Alaskan Merit Scholarship program. Section 5 details
the award structure and the requirements to qualify as a
postsecondary institution. Section 5 also contained agreed
upon defined terms. Section 6 had been amended to establish
that the commission would provide adequate funding for not
fewer than 5 students to attend four-year programs in each
of the following fields: dentistry, optometry, and
pharmacy.
5:24:42 PM
Mr. Mulligan continued. Sections 8 and 9 contained
transitional language to allow the Department of Education
(DOE) to permit the implementation of regulations. The
Merit Scholarship program would not be implemented until
July 2011. Section 10 contained provisions for the Joint
Legislative Higher Education Scholarship Funding Taskforce,
which was defined in Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 19.
Section 11 established an advisory taskforce on higher
education and career readiness, which was found in the
original version of SB 221. Two members from each body,
appointed by the presiding officer, would be appointed to
the taskforce. Mr. Mulligan stated that all section
pertaining to the Alaska Merit scholarship program would be
delayed a full year in order to give DOE a chance to
examine how the program would need to be structured. The
delay would also allow the various taskforces the ability
research the programs more comprehensively.
Representative Austerman asked if any of the regulations in
the bill would be implemented before the effective date of
2011.
DIANE BARRANS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, replied that the DOE
and the commission were prepared to move forward with the
regulations immediately. She stated that the plan was to
put regulations out by summer 2010, for public comment. The
hope was to have regulations that reasonably reflected what
schools and students would need to know by fall 2011, to
participate in the programs.
5:31:02 PM
Mr. Mulligan added that the transition language directly
stated that the regulations would be available for study,
but would not take effect until the effective date. This
would allow for the chance begin promulgating regulations
in order to get a head start on the regulatory process.
Co-Chair Hawker offered several points of clarification
regarding the bill. Page 7, Section 6 discussed the
extension of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher
Education (WICHE) program. He relayed that it had been
unclear whether the program would be comprised of 5
students or 60 students. He also asked bill drafters to
examine Page 4, Section 5, which discussed maximum awards
under the Alaska merit scholarship program. He wondered if
the awards would be distributed per year or per semester.
SHARON KELLY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, cited
Page 5, Item c, which stated that a student receiving a
scholarship could remain eligible for up to 8 semesters.
She agreed that the language could be clarified.
5:36:07 PM
Representative Joule wondered if students could raise their
eligibility levels by achieving high grade point averages
during the first year of college. Ms. Barrans replied no.
Representative Gara stated that he had not seen a fiscal
note funding the increase the ACPE grant cap from $2,000 to
$3,000. He requested a fiscal estimate of the cost to the
state if the full $3,000 was given to all who qualified.
Ms. Barrans replied that the fiscal note in the bill packet
provided for an additional $400,000 to fund the program for
the FY11 year. The commission had $620,000 left over from
the FY09 appropriation to fund grants in FY11. The average
funding for the program for the last 4 years has been $1
million per year. $1.1 million had been added in
continuation years for the needs based grant program. She
anticipated that after implementation the annual base grant
would rise from $1,000 to $1,500, priority grants from
$2,000 to $3,000, for the FY11 year. The out years after
that would be influence by the legislative recommendations
from the taskforce.
Representative Gara asked if the numbers could be more
easily provided by removing the regulation that offered
only half of the capped amount. Ms. Barrans replied that
she could get back to the committee with the numbers.
Representative Gara expressed concern for students living
in districts without access to the courses required to
qualify for the merit scholarship. He thought that Section
3 could resolve the problem.
5:42:52 PM
Co-Chair Hawker reminded the committee that only committee
chairs had the power to order fiscal notes for
distribution.
Representative Fairclough queried the language on Page 5,
Line 8. She hoped that student would not be precluded based
on taking classes during the summer semester. Ms. Barrans
replied that the scholarship could be spread out over three
semesters in an academic year. The six year timeline was
intended to allow for students who do not proceed
immediately from high school to postsecondary education.
Representative Fairclough expressed concern that a student
taking three semesters in years one and two, might end up
not qualifying for aid in their third year. Ms. Barrans
replied that the student would remain eligible for 8
semesters. If the student chose to accelerate their
program, the scholarship would be exhausted by the end of
the 8 semesters.
Representative Fairclough cited Page 4, Lines 10-12. She
asked if there had been a reduction in the governor's
original proposal for academic excellence. Mr. Mulligan
referred the question to the DOE commissioner.
Representative Joule wondered how long after high school
graduation could a student be eligible for the program. Ms.
Barrans replied that under the terms of the bill, the
student would be eligible for 6 years, following high
school graduation.
Representative Gara asked where the funds discussed in
Section 3 could be used. Ms. Barrans said that the funds
could be used at credited traditional or vocational
institutions. Currently, the program operated as a federal
and state partnership and the state received a small amount
of federal dollars. The terms upon which the grants were
issued must comply with federal requirements.
Representative Gara queried further examples of credited
institutions. Ms. Barrans replied that charter colleges and
career academies would qualify.
5:48:18 PM
Representative Gara expressed discomfort with Page 5, Line
1. He wondered if the state would save money by not
rewarding merit grants to students with less than a B
average. Ms. Barrans responded that that scenario had not
been calculated.
Representative Gara communicated reservation as to how the
program would apply to districts without access to the
courses required to qualify for the scholarships.
Representative Joule advocated for awarding scholarships to
students with a 2.5 grade point average (B average). He
shared his experience working with students who were at the
B average. He argued that the B average students were hard
and steady workers, and should not be denied the
opportunity for college scholarships.
Representative Doogan asked how many college credits the
first award level of $4,755, would pay for. Ms. Barrans
answered that the sum was the equivalent value of 15
credits at the University of Alaska based on the approved
tuition rate for 2010. The funds could be used for any
allowable cost for attendance.
Representative Gara expressed the desire to assist all
students in going onto postsecondary education, regardless
of their grade point average. He asked if there was
assistance under the bill for students who acquired a
general education diploma (GED). Ms. Kelly believed that
the intent of the bill was to move the governor's merit
scholarship forward. She added that any changes that needed
to be made to the bill could be made during the next
legislative session.
Representative Gara clarified that there was no provision
in the merit scholarship language for GED recipients to
receive assistance. Ms. Kelly said that was correct.
5:53:23 PM
TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, testified that the
CS had full support from the sponsor. He said that the
$4,755 figure specifically referred to the average tuition
at University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA). Tuition varied
around the state between the campuses. The University of
Alaska Anchorage tuition was slightly higher than the
University of Alaska Fairbanks, and the average of upper
and lower division classes for one year was the equation
used to establish the $4,755 figure.
Vice-Chair Thomas asked if a waiver would be used for rural
students that did not have access to the courses required
to qualify for the program.
Mr. Lamkin understood that there was transition language in
the regulations. He referred to Page 7, Lines 20-31. The
student may be eligible for the program even though the
student did not fully meet the required core academic
curriculum for the school years beginning July1, 2010,
through June 30, 2014. He stated that the effort was to
reform the education system and to encourage students to
work harder and perform better in school.
Vice-Chair Thomas asked whether the student or the
university received the money. Mr. Lamkin stated that the
issue would be clarified in the regulations. Mr. Lamkin
assured the committee that the taskforce would be working
during the interim to craft comprehensive regulations.
5:58:27 PM
Co-Chair Hawker opened public testimony.
Representative Austerman requested clarification on Page 4,
Lines 6 & 10 of the bill.
LARRY LEDOUX, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT, responded that two sets of criteria were
offered in order to qualify for the scholarships. The first
was 4 years of mathematics, 4 years of language arts, 4
years of science, and 4 years of social studies, one year
of a foreign language, which may include an Alaska Native
language, fine arts, or cultural heritage. The second
option was 3 years of mathematics, 4 years of language
arts, 3 years of science, 4 years of social studies, and 2
years of foreign language or an Alaska Native language. The
student would have the choice between the two options. The
language had been included by the Senate Education
Committee. Representative Austerman wondered if the two
options lowered the standards for qualifying to the level
of vocational education. Commissioner Ledoux responded that
the second option was intended for students who were not
oriented toward mathematics or the hard sciences. According
to the American College and Testing Board, both options
represented a college preparatory curriculum. The original
proposal was 4 years of science, 4 years of mathematics, 4
years of language arts, and 3 years of social studies, and
had been modified through the process, resulting in the 2
options.
6:02:43 PM
Representative Joule thought that the conversation about
education in the state could be broader than the bill
allowed. He expressed the desire to support a bill that
addressed real education reform so that GPAs would not be
an issue. He emphasized that the conversation should be
about students being able to read, comprehend, and retain
information by the 3rd grade. He stressed the need to
expand the conversation, and to work for a reformation of
the entire educational system.
Representative Doogan wondered how the fiscal impact could
begin at $9 million and increase to 21.5 million over 5
years. Ms. Barrans stated that the expected fiscal impact
for FY2010 was $9,321.9 million; and had two components.
One was $1.1 million, which was continuation level funding
for the needs based grant, the other $8.2 million
represented the average award amount for the number of
students that were expected to participate in the programs
the first group. The increase in the three years after that
provided for each of the new cohorts entering the program.
An attrition factor was built into each student group based
on the attrition rate that was typically experienced at the
University of Alaska.
Representative Gara queried the problem of schools that did
not have the coursework required to qualify for the
scholarships. He understood the department intended to
suggest the schools use on-line courses.
6:07:26 PM
Commissioner Ledoux informed the committee that across the
state, for many years, there had been independent courses
utilizing different methods of distance delivery. The
alternative courses had been used in 60 schools that had
between 20 and 11 students, ranging in ages K-12. Some
districts operated learning centers where students could
work on distance courses. Some districts were utilizing e-
learning blackboard illuminate, which were interactive
distance courses using the internet. Others had purchased
special independent study curriculum that was facilitated
by teachers. Many districts were using online, two way
video in real time. Aside from state sponsored
correspondence schools, some districts were utilizing
national correspondence schools. Many states across the
country, Alaska included, were coordinating activities into
a virtual school to make it easier for districts to offer
the required coursework. He emphasized the importance of
rigorous study; the department intended to be careful to
uphold high academic expectations.
Commissioner Ledoux regarded the proposal as a contract
rather than as a scholarship. The students in the states
smaller schools were aware of the challenges faced by their
districts, and they work harder because of it.
Representative Gara reiterated concerns about students who
graduate with a GED. Commissioner Ledoux replied that some
states had GED pathways. The House Education Committee
elected not to include GED recipients in the program.
Representative Gara asked if the department supported a GED
pathway.
Commissioner Ledoux responded that merit scholarship
programs evolve. He thought that as the program evolved
from year to year, an alternative pathway could be
established.
6:12:43 PM
Commissioner Ledoux said that the program was not about
what student were doing right now; it was about what they
were going to do. He reference Representative Gara'a
concern for scholarships for students with a GPA of 2.5. He
reiterated that the program was a contract; if the student
worked hard, if the student took the rigorous curriculum,
if good grades were received, the student would have a help
to go to college.
Representative Gara clarified that he wanted to help people
with a 2.5 GPA get into college.
Representative Salmon asked about the $400 million dollar
endowment written into the original bill. He wondered why
the fiscal note showed most of the funding coming from the
general fund. Commissioner Ledoux answered that the version
of the bill before the committee did not say how the
program would be funded. That task had been assigned to a
committee that would meet within the next two years.
Representative Salmon wondered what happened with the
endowment process.
Commissioner Ledoux replied that the endowment was not
currently in the bill, but could be reconsidered.
Vice-Chair Thomas asked if funding had been written into
the fiscal note to pay for the implementation of the
program into districts, such as adding more teachers.
Commissioner Ledoux replied no. He furthered that the cost
to districts would vary depending on how the program was
implemented, Larger schools could modify class schedules
and offerings, according to what the students needed under
the program requirements. Small schools could do the same;
however, the state would help to develop the necessary
programs in smaller districts. He said that more teachers
would not be needed because the number of students would
not be increasing.
6:17:33 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas countered that the several of the 15
school districts that he represented reported that they
would need new teachers in order to offer the classes
required by the program. He expressed concern that certain
districts would be left behind. He thought more research
was needed to be sure that the legislation was fair and
equitable. Commissioner Ledoux assured the committee that
the department would be reporting back to the legislature
every year into the future with regard to which schools in
the district were participating in the program. Every
superintendent in the state had been contacted and asked if
the program could be delivered in their districts. He said
that every superintendent in the district replied that the
program could be supported. He added that it would be more
difficult for some districts, and that the department would
work to assist those schools.
Vice-Chair Thomas cautioned the passing of the $3 million
fiscal note without assurances that all students in the
state would benefit, particularly the students in the
districts he represented. He felt he could not support a
bill that would leave the students he represented behind.
6:20:13 PM
Representative Fairclough thought it would be wise to let
the task force move forward with improvements in the
program.
Co-Chair Hawker any more public testimony.
CHRIS WILSON, JUNEAU, shared that he was a recipient of an
honors scholarship through the old scholarship program. He
expressed dismay that the program had disappeared. He was
currently employed by state because due to his two degrees.
Co-Chair Hawker closed public testimony.
SB 221 was set aside until later in the meeting.
6:26:22 PM AT EASE
7:25:55 PM RECONVENE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 221(EDC)
"An Act establishing an advisory task force on higher
education and career readiness in the legislative
branch of government; and providing for an effective
date."
9:14:15 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4, 26-
LS1309\M.4, Mischel, 4/16/10:
Page 3, line 13:
Delete "$3,000"
Insert "$4,000"
Page 3, following line 10:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 14.43.415(b) is amended to read:
(b) The commission may, if sufficient funding is
available, [SHALL] give an applicant eligible under
(a) of this section priority for a grant award if that
applicant is, or is about to be, enrolled in a program
of study that is preparatory for employment in an
occupation or profession for which the Department of
Labor and Workforce Development, or another workforce
data source selected as reliable by the commission,
indicates there is a severe shortage of trained
individuals in this state. Additionally, the
commission may give an applicant priority for a grant
award if that applicant has participated in a
secondary education program of study that can be
demonstrated to the commission to be a predictor for
success at the postsecondary education level for a
program of study described in this subsection. For
purposes of this subsection,
(1) "occupation or profession" means a job
for which specific postsecondary certification is a
prerequisite for entry-level placement;
(2) "severe shortage" means a current or
recurring job vacancy rate of 15 percent or greater,
as determined by the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development or by another workforce data source
determined reliable by the commission."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 7, line 28:
Delete "sec. 5"
Insert "sec. 6"
Page 8, line 10:
Delete "secs. 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8"
Insert "secs. 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9"
Page 13, line 3:
Delete "Section 11"
Insert "Section 12"
Page 13, line 4:
Delete "Sections 3, 4, 6, and 8 - 11"
Insert "Sections 4, 5, 7, and 9 - 12"
Page 13, line 6:
Delete "sec. 13"
Insert "sec. 14"
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Gara explained that the amendment would make
2 changes in Section 3 of the bill. The cap for needs based
grants for vocational technical schools and state higher
education would increase from $3,000 to $4,000. The second
change changes "shall" to "may" in Section 3, Line 8. A
fiscal note would need to be created to support the fiscal
impact of the amendment.
TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, noted that between
the two bodies a worthy compromise had been established
concerning the legislation. He warned that the amendment
could impede the progress of the bill.
9:18:52 PM
Representative Fairclough questioned Page 3, line 15. She
wondered if a change in the cap would limit the time a
student could participate in the program.
DIANE BARRANS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, thought the concern
was a valid.
Representative Doogan noted that the house had not weighed
in on any form of the bill, so there could be no existing
compromise between bodies on the legislation.
Vice-Chair Thomas asked if the grant was limited to trade
schools. Mr. Lamkin understood that the funds could be
applied to qualifying postsecondary educational facilities.
Ms. Barrans added qualifying schools were Pell grant
eligible schools; which included both vocational and
collegiate schools, but was not all encompassing in Alaska.
Vice-Chair Thomas commented that the money awarded by the
program was a small help, but that it was not significant
when considering the full cost of postsecondary education.
9:22:55 PM
Representative Fairclough asked if, based on the funds
currently available for the program, the program would be
adversely affected by the number of students receiving
funding. Ms. Barrans replied yes. Section 2 of the bill
would go into effect immediately and the pool of grant
applicants for the 2010-2011 year was already set. A rise
in the cap would limit the amount of students who could
receive funding.
Representative Fairclough thought that the raising of the
cap could be re-examined at another time after the task
force had the chance to analyze the bill more closely.
Representative Gara did not think that the change would
adversely affect students who had already applied for the
2010-2011 year. He said a fiscal note would be written to
fund the change. He urged against delaying the cap raise.
Co-Chair Stoltze MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Doogan, Foster, Gara, Salmon,
OPPOSED: Austerman, Fairclough, Joule, Kelly, Thomas,
Stoltze, Hawker
The MOTION FAILED (4-7).
9:29:18 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 26-
LS1309\M.2, Mischel, 4/16/10:
Page 4, following line 25:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) Notwithstanding the requirements under
(a)(3) and (4) of this section, the department shall
adopt, in regulation, alternative standards to the
curriculum and grade point average requirements that
demonstrate preparedness for attendance at a qualified
postsecondary institution for an otherwise eligible
student. The standards may include minimum scores for
a general education diploma and alternative curriculum
standards for vocational or other courses relating to
a postsecondary course of study."
Page 5, line 6, following "regulation.":
Insert "The regulations must allow for an extension of
time for a student who meets alternative eligibility
standards adopted under AS 14.43.820(c).
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Mr. Lamkin reminded the committee that the reform effort
was a contract with students to perform a more rigorous
curriculum. He believed that Representative Gara had a
valid point, but stressed that the issue would be best
taken up by the task force.
Co-Chair Hawker voiced support for the department to
resolve the issue addressed by the amendment and that the
amendment was unnecessary.
Co-Chair Stoltze MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Doogan, Foster, Gara, Salmon
OPPOSED: Fairclough, Joule, Kelly, Thomas, Austerman,
Hawker, Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (4-7).
9:31:52 PM
Co-Chair Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, 26-LS1309\M.3,
Mischel, 4/16/10):
Page 4, line 26:
Delete "Maximum awards. (a)The maximum"
Insert "Maximum annual awards. (a)The maximum
annual"
Page 7, line 9, following "students":
Insert "each year"
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Co-Chair Hawker explained that the amendment clarifies that
the award amount was an annual award, which was
accomplished by changing the preface to the section from
"maximum awards" to "maximum annual awards". The second
change clarified that the total number of students that
would receive awards was 20.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being no
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Hawker asked if any of the amendments that had
passed had changed the fiscal notes. Ms. Barrans replied
no.
Co-Chair Hawker stated that the most significant fiscal
note was for the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary
Education (ACPE). He wondered if the cost leading into 2015
was too high to be maintained. He felt that within two
budget cycles, the state could be back in a deficit. Ms.
Barrans replied that the state would be paying for success.
Co-Chair Hawker warned that the passage of large fiscal
notes during the session could lead to future deficits.
Representative Gara expressed frustration that the state
could spend $20 million on a college aid program that was
not going to help student attend college. He believed that
for half the amount a program could have been developed
that would help those willing to go to college of job
training. He stressed that he had never seen a bill that
cost so much money that was so incomplete and poorly
crafted. He opined that the state was one of 2 in the
nation that had refused to sign on to a national policy
towards bettering schools.
9:38:28 PM
Representative Joule asked about the establishment of the
advisory taskforce discussed in Section 11 of the bill. Mr.
Lamkin replied that the task force was intentionally set up
to include members with a background in education. The list
of members included a number of institutions and agencies
within the state that were directly involved in the K-12
and postsecondary educational system. Representative Joule
asked about the involvement of the Alaska Federation of
Natives (AFN). He shared that there were many native
corporations that gave millions of dollars annually for
scholarships. He asked if the president of the task force
would reach out to the native corporations, or if the only
native representation would be from AFN. Mr. Lamkin
responded that concern for rural capacity on the task force
had been discussed in education committees. In the interest
of minimizing controversy, AFN seemed to be the natural
choice as the rural voice on the task force. He believed
that, given the scholarships and vocational training
offered by native organizations in the state, AFN would
seek out a representative from one of those organizations.
Representative Fairclough wondered if the organizations
listed for the task force had already agreed to
participate. Mr. Lamkin said yes.
Representative Doogan questioned the effectiveness of a
task force comprised of members who were part of a system
that was already failing. He wondered if there was better
pool to draw from. He thought the legislation had been
poorly crafted. He felt that under the legislation money
would not be given to students who really needed it. He
suggested that the problems faced by students in Alaska
were substantially different than in the lower 48. He felt
that the legislature had embarked on a course that was
irreversible and redundant.
9:45:14 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas pointed out to the committee that charter
schools, which were proving to be successful in the
education of students in the state, were not represented on
the advisory board list. He shared that as a young person
growing up in the state receiving a higher education had
been encouraged. He lamented that children in rural Alaska
could be denied the chance to apply for the scholarship
because of curriculum limitations in smaller village
schools. He questioned the sincerity of the bill to help
students from all parts of the state and declared strong
opposition to the legislation.
Representative Fairclough reiterated the concern that the
scholars program at UAS would be eliminated because of
diminished general fund dollars as a result of the
legislation. She thought that changes needed to be examined
within DOE in order for the legislation to be successful.
Representative Gara acknowledged the hard work done on the
legislation. He reiterated his frustration regarding the
legislative policy in the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze acknowledged that more time and
information would be needed to craft a bill that pleased
all parties, and that the K-12 system in the state needed
improvement. He applauded the hard work that had been done
to craft the legislation.
9:51:14 PM
Representative Kelly hoped the once a task force was
established, the members would be made aware of the
committee's concerns about an already failing education
system in the state.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION to adopting work
draft 26-LS1309\M, as the working document. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Hawker MOVED to report HCS CS SB 221(FIN),
amended, out of Committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal notes.
HCS CS SB 221(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and two new attached fiscal impact note by
the Department of Education and Early Development and one
new fiscal impact note by the Legislative Affairs Agency.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|