Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

04/09/2018 01:00 PM JUDICIARY

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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Delayed to 2:00 pm --
+ SB 202 NATIVE CORP. LIABILITY FOR CONTAMINATION TELECONFERENCED
Moved HCS SB 202(JUD) Out of Committee
+ HB 336 SUPPORTIVE DECISION-MAKING AGREEMENTS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
        SB 202-NATIVE CORP. LIABILITY FOR CONTAMINATION                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:12:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE CS  FOR SENATE BILL NO.  202(JUD), "An Act relating  to the                                                               
liability of a  Native corporation for the  release or threatened                                                               
release of hazardous substances present on certain lands."                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN reminded  the committee that it  previously heard HB
67 [companion bill to SB 202] and  his plan is to pass SB 202 out                                                               
of committee today.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:13:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  moved to adopt Amendment  1, labeled 30-LS1422\A.4,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 6:                                                                                                            
          Delete "and (n)"                                                                                                  
          Delete "exception set out in (i)"                                                                                     
          Insert "exceptions [EXCEPTION] set out in (i) and                                                             
     (n)"                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 27, through page 3, line 1:                                                                                   
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
          "(n)  A Native corporation that acquired land                                                                         
     under  43 U.S.C.  1601 et  seq.  (Alaska Native  Claims                                                                    
     Settlement Act) is not liable  under this section for a                                                                    
     release or threatened release  of a hazardous substance                                                                    
     on the  land unless the  Native corporation, by  an act                                                                    
     or omission,  caused or contributed  to the  release or                                                                    
     threatened release of the hazardous substance."                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:14:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MARIDON  BOARIO,  Staff,  Senator  Lyman  Hoffman,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, explained  that Amendment 1 creates  an exception to                                                               
strict liability under  AS 46.03.822.  Under  this amendment, she                                                               
advised, strict  liability does not apply  to Native Corporations                                                               
for any  release or threatened  release of a  hazardous substance                                                               
on land  granted under  the Alaska  Native Claims  Settlement Act                                                               
(ANCSA) unless  the Native  Corporation, by  an act  or omission,                                                               
caused or contributed to the  release or threatened release.  The                                                               
amendment  also  removes the  burden  of  proof from  the  Native                                                               
Corporation, and  she added that  Senator Hoffman  fully supports                                                               
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:14:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised  that the intention of Amendment  1 is that                                                               
the  Senate bill  will  track  the language  passed  on a  recent                                                               
federal law within an appropriations bill (Indisc.).                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. BOARIO responded  that Chair Claman was  correct because when                                                               
this bill  was introduced there was  pending federal legislation,                                                               
which has since  passed.  When that law was  passed, she advised,                                                               
it came to light that  possibly Alaska's statute was not tracking                                                               
as closely as  it should have, and this language  makes state law                                                               
compatible with the federal law.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:15:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  offered a  scenario of someone  finding a                                                               
hazardous  substance on  another person's  property and  surmised                                                               
that under this  amendment, if someone goes to  that property and                                                               
finds "something,  in order  for them  to be  liable, we  have to                                                               
prove that they were to blame for the substance."                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. BOARIO  answered that the  burden of  proof is on  the person                                                               
who caused the contamination.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:16:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked whether the  burden of proof  is on                                                               
the  Native  Corporation to  prove  that  it  did not  cause  the                                                               
problem,  or must  someone, possibly  the government,  prove that                                                               
they did cause the contamination.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. BOARIO replied that Representative Eastman was correct.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:17:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  surmised  that that  scenario  would  be                                                               
different  for the  Native Corporation  than it  is for  everyone                                                               
else because  in other  property situations  the burden  of proof                                                               
would be  on the person  to prove  that they did  not contaminate                                                               
the property.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. BOARIO  deferred to  Chair Claman,  and said  that this  is a                                                               
specific situation for Alaska  Native Corporations on transferred                                                               
land.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:18:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that  it appears Amendment 1 simply                                                               
makes  clear that  the Native  Corporation owned  lands were  not                                                               
conveyed  liability in  the  Alaska Native  Settlement  Act.   In                                                               
other words,  he explained, as  SB 202 currently reads,  the onus                                                               
is  on  the  Native  Corporation  to  prove  it  is  not  liable.                                                               
Wherein,  under  this  amendment   the  Native  Corporations  are                                                               
basically  moved to  a neutral  position, and  the assumption  is                                                               
that  the Native  Corporations were  not  conveyed any  liability                                                               
when lands were conveyed to the Native Corporations.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. BOARIO replied that Representative Kopp was correct.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:19:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STUTES withdrew  her objection.   There  being no                                                               
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:19:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX moved  to adopt  Amendment 2,  labeled 30-                                                               
LS1422\A/1, which read as follows:                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 1:                                                                                                            
          Delete "Native corporation"                                                                                         
          Insert "person"                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 24, through page 3, line 2:                                                                                   
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
        "* Sec. 2. AS 46.03.822(d) is amended to read:                                                                      
          (d)  To establish that a person had no reason to                                                                      
     know that  the hazardous substance was  disposed of on,                                                                    
     in, or at  the facility, as provided in  (c)(1) and (l)                                                                    
     of this section,  or to establish that a  person had no                                                                
     reason  to  know  that   the  hazardous  substance  was                                                                
     present on  the land at  the time the ownership  of the                                                                
     land was transferred to the  person, as provided in (n)                                                                
     of this  section, the person  must have  undertaken, at                                                                
     the  time  of  voluntary  acquisition,  all  reasonable                                                                    
     inquiries into  the previous ownership and  uses of the                                                                    
     property consistent  with good commercial  or customary                                                                    
     practice  in  an  effort  to  minimize  liability.  For                                                                    
     purposes  of this  subsection a  court shall  take into                                                                    
     account all relevant facts, including                                                                                      
               (1)  any  specialized knowledge or experience                                                                    
     the person has;                                                                                                            
               (2)   the relationship of the  purchase price                                                                    
     to   the   value   of   the   property   if   it   were                                                                    
     uncontaminated;                                                                                                            
               (3)       commonly   known    or   reasonably                                                                    
     ascertainable information about the property;                                                                              
               (4)    the  obviousness of  the  presence  or                                                                    
     likely presence of contamination at the property; and                                                                      
               (5)   the ability to detect  contamination by                                                                    
     appropriate inspection.                                                                                                    
        * Sec.  3. AS 46.03.822 is  amended by adding  a new                                                                  
     subsection to read:                                                                                                        
          (n)  In an action to recover damages or costs, a                                                                      
     person  otherwise  liable  under  this  section  for  a                                                                    
     release or threatened release  of a hazardous substance                                                                    
     on the  person's land is relieved  from liability under                                                                    
     this section if the person proves that the                                                                                 
               (1)   person did not  know and had  no reason                                                                    
     to  know that  the hazardous  substance was  present on                                                                    
     the  land at  the time  the ownership  of the  land was                                                                    
     transferred to the person; and                                                                                             
               (2)   hazardous substance was present  on the                                                                    
     land  at  the  time  the  ownership  of  the  land  was                                                                    
     transferred to the person."                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:19:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that "this  is a very good bill,"                                                               
except  it brings  out a  problem  in Alaska's  laws in  general.                                                               
There  is  the  problem  that  someone  could  be  a  good  faith                                                               
purchaser or grantee of a property  and end up getting stuck on a                                                               
strict  liability standard  for a  hazard on  the property.   She                                                               
opined that  that situation is  not fair, which has  been pointed                                                               
out  in the  context of  Native Corporations.   Amendment  2, she                                                               
explained, basically  "changes our law,  period, so that  no good                                                               
faith person ends  up to be liable."  She  acknowledged that this                                                               
is a huge  change in Alaska law  and she does not  want to impede                                                               
this bill because  it will help the Native  Corporations with its                                                               
contaminated   lands.     Representative   LeDoux  advised   that                                                               
Amendment 2  was drafted to  shed light on this  existing problem                                                               
in  the  Department  of   Environmental  Conservation  (DEC)  and                                                               
environmental  law  wherein  a future  legislature  may  possibly                                                               
change this  law for  everyone.  She  advised that  she withdraws                                                               
Amendment 2.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:21:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  moved to  adopt Amendment 3,  labeled 30-                                                               
LS1422\A.2, which read as follows:                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
       Page 2, line 29, following the first occurrence of                                                                       
     "the":                                                                                                                     
          Insert "(1)"                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 31:                                                                                                           
          Delete "and the"                                                                                                      
          Insert ";                                                                                                             
               (2)"                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 1, following "granted":                                                                                       
          Insert "; and                                                                                                         
               (3)  Native corporation did not have control                                                                     
     of the land at the time the hazardous substance was                                                                        
     disposed of or placed on the land"                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:21:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN   referred  to   [SB  202,  Sec.   3.  AS                                                               
46.03.822, page 3,  line 1], and explained that  Amendment 3 adds                                                               
the language after the word "granted." as follows:                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
               (3) Native corporation did not have control                                                                      
     of the land at the time the hazardous substance was                                                                        
     disposed of or placed on the land.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  explained  that the  language  clarifies                                                               
that a Native Corporation managed  its land prior to the granting                                                               
of land,  and if the  corporation is already responsible  for the                                                               
land  "and there's  things  being  done to  it,"  this would  not                                                               
inadvertently   absolve  those   responsible  parties   of  their                                                               
responsibility  to make  certain  the  hazardous substances  were                                                               
appropriately disposed.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:22:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN asked  the sponsor  of the  bill, in  light of  the                                                               
passage of  Amendment 1, whether  the sponsor  supports Amendment                                                               
3.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BOARIO  opined  that  Senator   Hoffman  would  not  support                                                               
Amendment 3.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:22:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  noted  that  [within  the  committee  packet]  are                                                               
letters  from  Daniel  Cheyette,  Vice President  for  Lands  and                                                               
Natural Resources,  Bristol Bay  Native Corporation;  and Jaeleen                                                               
Kookesh, Vice  President, General Counsel &  Corporate Secretary.                                                               
He referred  to the last sentence  of paragraph 3, of  the 4/9/18                                                               
letter  from  the  Sealaska Corporation  which  read  as  follows                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      Representative Eastman's amendment would be moot if                                                                       
       your amendment is adopted by the Committee and the                                                                       
     legislature.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative  Eastman whether the passage of                                                               
Amendment 1 moots his motion to adopt Amendment 3.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:23:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
[CHAIR  CLAMAN and  Representative Eastman  discussed receipt  of                                                               
the letter and its content.]                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  again asked whether  Representative Eastman  had an                                                               
argument that the passage of Amendment  1 did not moot his motion                                                               
for the adoption of Amendment 3.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN commented  that  it is  hard  for him  to                                                               
understand why Amendment 3 is now moot.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:24:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  directed Representative Eastman's attention  to the                                                               
4/9/18 letter from the Bristol  Bay Native Corporation [contained                                                               
within the committee  packet] and asked that he  read paragraph 4                                                               
as  it explains  why  Amendment 3  is moot.    He requested  that                                                               
Representative Eastman  offer a  basis within which  Chair Claman                                                               
should not rule Amendment 3 out-of-order.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN opined  that "this  actually gets  to the                                                               
substance"  of  the  matter  and  Amendment  3  is  important  to                                                               
discuss.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:24:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN ruled  Amendment 3  out-of-order because  he agreed                                                               
with the analysis  provided by the Sealaska  Corporation that the                                                               
adoption  of Amendment  1 takes  out  the burdens  "that you  are                                                               
actually talking about."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  advised  that even  though  the  committee  passed                                                               
Amendment 1,  it raised a  fiscal note issue that  John Halverson                                                               
of the Department of Environmental Conservation would address.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:25:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOHN  HALVERSON,  Environmental   Program  Manager,  Contaminated                                                               
Sites  Program, Department  of Environmental  Conservation (DEC),                                                               
advised that there would likely be  a need for a fiscal note with                                                               
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN requested more clarity as  to whether it would be an                                                               
increased  fiscal  note  and  whether there  was  a  fiscal  note                                                               
previously.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HALVERSON  responded  that  there was  a  zero  fiscal  note                                                               
previously  and  with  Amendment  1  there  would  likely  be  an                                                               
increase in state costs because the  burden of proof will have to                                                               
fall to the state.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:26:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP asked  whether the  burden is  normally with                                                               
the  state  when  it  comes  to  DEC  litigated  claims  on  land                                                               
transfers that  move from the  state to private ownership,  or is                                                               
the burden  of proof normally  with the  person to whom  the land                                                               
was transferred to, and whether  there is a standard that applies                                                               
here.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. HALVERSON  responded that  normally it  would be  through the                                                               
parties to the transaction rather than to the state.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:27:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP said  (Indisc.) transaction  happened to  be                                                               
the state  and the person  to whom the  land was conveyed  to, he                                                               
asked  whether  it  would  be   the  state's  job  to  prove  the                                                               
liability.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. HALVERSON answered that the burden  would be on the party who                                                               
previously owned the  property.  This case  deals with properties                                                               
that   were  under   federal  ownership   and  conveyed   to  the                                                               
corporations.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:28:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KREISS-TOMKINS   noted   that  many   of   these                                                               
conveyances  are  from  the  federal  government  to  the  Native                                                               
Corporations  under  the  Alaska  Native  Claims  Settlement  Act                                                               
(ANCSA), and  asked where the  State of  Alaska and DEC  fit into                                                               
that equation, and  why DEC would have any obligation  if this is                                                               
a  transaction between  two parties  that  are not  the State  of                                                               
Alaska.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. HALVERSON opined that if  there is a disagreement between the                                                               
current landowner and the  federal government over responsibility                                                               
for contamination on the land,  the state would typically look to                                                               
those parties  to sort it out  and it would provide  oversight on                                                               
any necessary cleanup.  Under  adopted Amendment 1, the state may                                                               
incur some additional expenses in  trying to research the history                                                               
on   when  contamination   occurred   and   whether  the   Native                                                               
Corporation  had caused  or contributed  to existing  problems at                                                               
the site.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN added  that one of the key concepts  to recognize in                                                               
SB 202, page 1, lines 9-11, read as follows:                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     damages,  for  the   costs  of  response,  containment,                                                                    
     removal, or  remedial action incurred  by the  state, a                                                                    
     municipality,  or a  village,  and  for the  additional                                                                    
     costs   of    a   function   or    service,   including                                                                    
     administrative  expenses for  the incremental  costs of                                                                    
     providing the                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN advised  the if  there is  contamination, typically                                                               
the state  or municipality  engages costs and  then looks  to the                                                               
landowner  for reimbursement.   The  above provision  essentially                                                               
says that  if there is  an effort by the  state to try  to recoup                                                               
those costs,  it would have  to be able  to show that  the Native                                                               
Corporation had caused the contamination.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:30:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that this  comes down to a fundamental                                                               
due process issue because Native  Corporations are a corporation,                                                               
but they are also Alaskans and  have been given land under ANSCA.                                                               
Without this amendment, they would  be required to wage legal war                                                               
with the  federal government,  who has  limitless resources.   He                                                               
opined that  this puts  the Native Corporations  on a  more equal                                                               
footing wherein  they are  not presumed  guilty until  they prove                                                               
otherwise.  He said that  it introduces a due process protection,                                                               
which is "very important."                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:31:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  pointed out that  no motion had been  introduced to                                                               
change the  committee's action  on Amendment 1,  and moved  on to                                                               
committee discussion.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:31:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  noted that Amendment 2  was not discussed                                                               
because its  sponsor withdrew the  amendment.  He  commented that                                                               
the  sponsors of  this bill  make a  strong point  that liability                                                               
ought not  be placed where  it does  not belong, and  Amendment 2                                                               
makes that  same point.  He  said that he looks  forward to being                                                               
able to  support that  amendment or other  language at  the first                                                               
opportunity.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:32:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES commented  that she is happy to  see SB 202                                                               
because her  district contains some contaminated  areas that have                                                               
absolutely crippled  the Native  Corporation from  developing the                                                               
areas.  She  opined that possibly with SB 202,  it will allow the                                                               
Native Corporations some recourse to  move forward because in her                                                               
area  as well,  as  many other  rural areas,  housing  is a  huge                                                               
problem and the  Native Corporations are unable  to develop their                                                               
lands for housing due to these types of issues.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:32:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  commented that  he  is  particularly pleased  with                                                               
Amendment 1  because it  puts state  law and  federal law  on the                                                               
same path,  which is a positive  step.  Thereby, he  advised, the                                                               
Native  Corporations would  not  have to  look  at two  different                                                               
rules for two different jurisdictions as they move forward.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:33:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  REPRESENTATIVE moved to  report SB
202,  labeled  30-LS1422\A, as  amended,  out  of committee  with                                                               
individual  recommendations and  the  accompanying fiscal  notes.                                                               
There being  no objection,  SB 202(JUD) passed  out of  the House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                                   

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB202 ver A 4.9.18.PDF HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Sponsor Statement 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Sectional Analysis ver A 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Fiscal Note DEC-SPAR 4.9.18.PDF HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Additional Document-Letter to Rep. Claman Re SB 202 ANC Contaminated Lands 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Amendments #1-3 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
HB336 Work Draft ver U 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Explanation of Changes ver U 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Sectional Analysis ver U 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Sponsor Statement 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-Time Magazine Article on Fraud 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-SDMA Q&A 4.6.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-SDMA Pilot Program Evaluation Human Services Research Institute 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-Guardianship Numbers in AK 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-Governor's Council on Disabilities 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-OPA & Guardianship 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-SDMA Example from Autistic Self Advocacy Network 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-SDMA Example from Texas 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-SDMA Law from Delaware 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-SDMA Law Texas 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-Nonotuck SDMA Example 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-National Core Indicators 2016 Survey 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-SDMA - Agenda for Action 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-SDMA Bill from Rhode Island 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-SDMA Texas Statutes 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-SMDA Paper by Council on Quality and Leadership 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-AARP Alaska Letter 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-Delaune Letter 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Additional Document-Rule 402 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Fiscal Note DHSS-SDSA 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/11/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-Disability Law Center Letter 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-Alaska Association on Developmental Disabilities Letter 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
HB336 Supporting Document-Public Comment 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 336
SB202 Supporting Document-Eyak Corporation Letter in Support of Amendment #1 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Supporting Document-Calista Corporation Letter in Support of Amendment #1 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Supporting Document-Koniag Letter in Support of Amendment #1 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Supporting Document-Bristol Bay Native Corporation Letter in Support of Amendment #1 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Supporting Document-Bering Straits Native Corporation Letter in Support of Amendment #1 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Supporting Document-Sealaska Corporation Letter in Support of Amendment #1 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202
SB202 Amendments #1-3 HJUD Final Votes 4.9.18.pdf HJUD 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 202